Concurrent Acquittal Stands Where Ocular Evidence Mismatches Medical Findings and Independent Witnesses Turn Hostile

On October 11, 1998, the informant and the deceased (Vinod Prasad) were allegedly intercepted by Respondent No. 2 (Nakul Prasad) and others.

The prosecution alleged that four accused fired multiple shots; specifically, Respondent No. 2 was alleged to have shot the deceased on the right side of his chin.

The Trial Court acquitted Respondent No. 2 on December 24, 2024, citing a mismatch between ocular and medical evidence, the hostility of independent witnesses, and reliance on interested witnesses.

The High Court of Patna affirmed this acquittal on September 11, 2025.

The Appellant (son of the deceased) challenged these concurrent findings before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

1. Whether the concurrent acquittal by the Trial Court and the High Court suffered from perversity, manifest illegality, or gross misappreciation of evidence warranting interference under Article 136.

2. Whether the ocular testimony of related witnesses, despite partial medical corroboration, was sufficient to overturn an acquittal when independent witnesses turned hostile.

The Court applied the standard for interference with acquittals, emphasizing the "double presumption of innocence" as established in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka and Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

The principle from Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh that if two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail.

As per Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, while a relative’s testimony cannot be rejected solely due to relationship, it requires "careful scrutiny".

A plea of alibi (Section 11, Evidence Act) must be proved to the exclusion of the accused's presence, but its failure does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proof.

The Court observed that while PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 consistently attributed the chin injury to Respondent No. 2 (matching Injury No. v of the post-mortem), the overall prosecution case remained doubtful.

The FIR and ocular version alleged four distinct gunshots, whereas the medical report recorded only three firearm tracks, with certain "entry" wounds described by witnesses appearing as "exit" wounds in the medical report.

The Court reasoned that conviction cannot be based on one corroborated fragment of an otherwise inconsistent narrative.

The prosecution failed to examine several named independent witnesses, and those who were examined (PW-3 and PW-5) turned hostile.

The cumulative effect of these infirmities—discrepancies in the number of shots, investigative lapses, and delay in the FIR—rendered the "benefit of doubt" view taken by the lower courts a reasonable and non-perverse conclusion.

The Court held that in an appeal against a concurrent acquittal, the appellate court should not substitute its view even if an alternative interpretation of evidence is possible.

The appeal was dismissed, the judgment of acquittal was affirmed, and Respondent No. 2 was discharged of his bail bonds.