Appellate interference with acquittal is impermissible when prosecution witnesses are contradictory and wholly unreliable.

The case originated from an incident on 05.11.2008, where the deceased, Somni Devi, alleged in her fardbeyan that Respondents 2, 3, and 4 forcibly attempted to evict her from her house, uprooted the structure, and assaulted her.

She claimed Respondent No. 2 dragged her into a paddy field, causing her limbs to become senseless.

Following her death on 09.11.2008, her son, Pappu Rai (PW-5), recorded a second fardbeyan alleging he witnessed the assault.

The Respondents were charged under Sections 447, 427, 379, and 302/34 of the IPC.

The Trial Court acquitted the Respondents on 27.02.2024, citing material contradictions in witness testimonies, non-examination of the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and the Doctor, and failure to prove the cause of death.

1. Whether the prosecution proved the charges of murder and trespass beyond a reasonable doubt in light of the material contradictions between the testimonies of the eye-witnesses.

2. Whether the statement of the deceased could be treated as a reliable dying declaration despite the absence of a medical certificate of fitness and non-examination of the recording officer.

3. Whether the non-examination of the I.O. and the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem was fatal to the prosecution's case.

The Court applied the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove its case "beyond all reasonable doubt".

It relied on the standard for Section 302 (Murder) and Section 34 (Common Intention) of the IPC.

Regarding appellate intervention, the court followed the established doctrine that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's findings are perverse or the conclusion of guilt is "irresistible".

The court also emphasized the necessity of corroborating a dying declaration under Section 32 of the Indian Evidence Act, particularly when the declarant's physical/mental fitness is not certified.

The Court found the prosecution witnesses (PW-1 to PW-5) to be "wholly unreliable" due to irreconcilable contradictions.

PW-1 (daughter-in-law) claimed she was the sole witness and that her husband (PW-5) and father-in-law (PW-4) arrived days after the incident, directly contradicting PW-5’s claim that he was present and fled the scene.

PW-3 claimed the deceased regained consciousness and spoke in the hospital, whereas PW-1 insisted the deceased remained unconscious until death.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to prove the post-mortem report or examine the Doctor, leaving the cause of death unestablished.

The non-examination of the I.O. and the officer who recorded the fardbeyan prevented the defense from proving omissions and commissions, which the Court deemed fatal to the prosecution.

The High Court concluded that the Trial Court’s decision was based on a correct appreciation of these evidentiary gaps.

The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt due to the poor quality of evidence and the "wholly unreliable" nature of the related witnesses.

The Court found no perversity in the Trial Court’s findings and declined to interfere with the acquittal.