Delayed FIR and admissions of external legal tutoring render prosecution testimony unreliable, justifying acquittal.

The State appealed against the judgment dated 13.05.2014 by the ACJM, Khandwa, which acquitted the respondents of assault charges

The prosecution alleged that on 14.06.2009, a dispute arose over an irrigation pipe, leading the respondents to assault Rupabai (PW-1) and Mohanlal (PW-2) with sticks

Although an "adam check" (non-cognizable report) was allegedly made on 16.06.2009, the formal FIR (Ex.P/10) was registered only on 18.07.2009—after a delay of over one month—following an X-ray report showing a fracture

During the trial, the accused pleaded innocence, claiming false implication due to a land dispute

1. Whether the delay of one month and four days in lodging the FIR, coupled with the non-production of the original "adam check" report, is fatal to the prosecution's case?

2. Whether the testimonies of the injured witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) are reliable, given admissions of prior rivalry and legal tutoring?

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with an order of acquittal when the Trial Court’s view is a "possible view"?

Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, regarding appeals against acquittal

Evidentiary principle that material contradictions and the possibility of "tutoring" negate the reliability of witnesses

Standards set by the Supreme Court in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which mandate that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view is "possible" and not "patently perverse," even if a second view exists

The Court found the prosecution's case highly doubtful due to the unexplained delay of 34 days in registering the FIR and the failure to produce the original preliminary report (adam check)

The Court noted significant admissions by PW-1 (Rupabai), who stated that her advocate drafted the report, she was coached on her testimony, and she filed a "false case" because the accused did not follow her directions

Similarly, PW-2 admitted his statement was recorded 20 days late and that his testimony was read to him by an advocate prior to the hearing

The medical evidence failed to corroborate the exaggerated claims of PW-1 regarding the extent of her injuries (claims of her hand being cut)

Consequently, the Court held that the Trial Court rightly identified these material contradictions and previous enmities as grounds for doubt

The Court affirmed that the acquittal reinforced the presumption of innocence and that the Trial Court's findings were neither perverse nor illegal. The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of the respondents was upheld