Delay in filing and lack of independent Corroboration justify dismissal of appeal against acquittal.

The complainant, Vinod Kumar, alleged that on February 26, 2014, his brother (the respondent) assaulted him with brick pieces and a stick following a dispute over vacating a house.

The incident purportedly occurred in the presence of their father, who allegedly exhorted the respondent to hit the complainant.

A delay occurred in filing the FIR, which was registered on October 27, 2014, despite the police station being en route to the complainant's home.

The Trial Court (JMFC, Waidhan) acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 325, 323, and 506 of the IPC on December 31, 2022.

The state appealed this acquittal, seeking leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt regarding the charges under Sections 323, 325, and 506 of the IPC

2. Whether the findings of the Trial Court were perverse, illegal, or sufficiently erroneous to warrant interference by an appellate court in a judgment of acquittal

Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 325 (voluntarily causing grievous hurt), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code.

Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. regarding leave to appeal against acquittal.

The court emphasized the "double presumption of innocence" in acquittal appeals.

State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu (2016), establishing that if two views are possible, the one favorable to the accused must be adopted.

Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023), ruling that suspicion cannot replace proof.

Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), which summarized that appellate courts should not reverse a legally plausible view of the trial court.

The 24-hour delay in lodging the FIR was not satisfactorily explained, despite the complainant passing the police station after the incident.

The testimonies of the witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) were marred by material contradictions, exaggerations, and omissions compared to their Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements.

The prosecution failed to examine the father—a crucial eyewitness—without justification, and failed to call independent neighbors as witnesses despite the incident occurring in a residential area.

Medical evidence was deemed unreliable as the MLC report lacked the doctor's signature (Ex. D/5) and contained chronological discrepancies regarding the timing of the injuries relative to the incident.

The court noted that existing property animosity between the brothers further clouded the complainant's credibility.

In an appeal against acquittal, a plausible view favoring the accused cannot be reversed merely because a contrary view is possible.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal (I.A. No. 9313/2023) and the Criminal Appeal were dismissed.