Evidence inconsistencies and medical testimony supporting accidental injury justify acquittal in assault case.

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the judgment dated 19.11.2016 passed by the JMFC, Sagar, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 294, 323/34, 325/34, and 506 Part II of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on 23.08.2015, the respondents used filthy language, assaulted the complainant Tekram with a lathi, and issued death threats

The trial court acquitted the accused due to material contradictions between the testimony of the victim and his wife, the hostility of independent witnesses, and medical evidence suggesting the injuries could have been caused by a fall on a hard surface

1. Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of material evidence, necessitating interference by the appellate court

2. Whether the testimony of the victim and his wife was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite contradictions and the lack of independent corroboration

The court applied Sections 378 and 378(III) of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding appeals against acquittal

The court relied on the principles established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka (2024), which dictate that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court's view is "legally plausible," even if another view is possible

It further cited Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar Vs. State of Karnataka (2024), emphasizing that interference is only warranted if the judgment suffers from "patent perversity"

The High Court found that while the victim (PW-1) and his wife (PW-2) supported the prosecution, their testimonies were significantly exaggerated and contradictory. Specifically, PW-1 claimed a single lathi blow and immediate unconsciousness, whereas PW-2 alleged four to five blows.

Medical evidence by PW-4 and PW-5 showed only one injury (a fracture), which the doctors admitted could result from falling on a hard surface.

The court noted that 10-12 bystanders were not examined as witnesses and that a pre-existing rivalry existed between the parties. Applying the restrictive scope of Section 378, the court reasoned that the trial court's decision was a "possible view" based on a proper appreciation of evidence and did not meet the threshold of perversity required for reversal.

The court affirmed the trial court’s findings, ruling that there were no grounds for interference as the acquittal was neither erroneous nor illegal. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.