Discrepancy between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding weapon type warrants benefit of doubt in acquittal.

The State sought leave to appeal against a trial court judgment dated 30.07.2013, which acquitted the Respondent of charges under Sections 452, 294, 307, and 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that on 30.09.2010, the accused entered the "Garang Ashram" and assaulted Jyoti Ranjan Panda (P.W.6) with a "Tangia" (axe), causing seven bleeding injuries.

During trial, the informant (P.W.5) and the mother and brother of the accused (P.Ws.1 and 2) turned hostile.

The trial court acquitted the accused due to material contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, and the fact that the accused was a regular disciple with lawful access to the premises.

1. Whether the findings of the trial court regarding the acquittal were perverse or based on a misreading of material evidence so as to warrant interference by the High Court under Section 378 of the CrPC.

2. Whether the entry of the accused into the Ashram constituted criminal trespass under Section 452 IPC.

3. Whether the contradiction between the alleged weapon (sharp Tangia) and the medical report (blunt injuries) was sufficient to create reasonable doubt.

The Court primarily followed the principles governing appeals against acquittal as laid down in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) and Sadhu Saran Singh vs. State of U.P. (2016), which hold that an appellate court should only interfere if the trial court's judgment is perverse or legally unsustainable.

Regarding the appreciation of injured witness testimony, the court applied the criteria from Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra (2023), which emphasizes that while such evidence has high value, it must still be consistent and free from material contradictions.

Statutory provisions included Sections 452 (trespass), 294 (obscenity), and 307/326 (assault/attempted murder) of the IPC.

The Court found no perversity in the trial court's reasoning. Regarding Section 452, the testimony of P.W.4 established that the accused had been a disciple for 13 years, meaning his entry was not unauthorized.

On the assault charges, the Court noted a critical disconnect between the ocular testimony and medical evidence: while witnesses claimed a Tangia (sharp weapon) was used, the medical discharge certificate (Ext.1) recorded injuries caused by a "hard and blunt object".

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to elicit an expert opinion on whether the blunt side of the axe could have caused such wounds.

Furthermore, the investigation was found to be deficient: the Investigating Officer (P.W.7) never visited the hospitals, failed to seize original medical records (relying only on a photocopy), and did not examine the actual treating doctors.

P.W.4’s status as an eyewitness was also doubted because he admitted during cross-examination to being inside a room while the assault occurred outside.

It held that the cumulative effect of the hostile witnesses, the material contradictions between the weapon and injury type, and the lack of reliable medical testimony created substantial reasonable doubt.

The Court concluded that in an appeal against acquittal, if two views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must be upheld unless the trial court's view is "wholly unsustainable".