Hostile testimony and failure to cross-examine resiling witnesses preclude reversal of an acquittal order.

On August 30, 2016, the complainant Sugna Bai (PW-1) and her daughter Savita (PW-2) were allegedly accosted by the respondents armed with a knife, who robbed a gold chain (6 gm) and a mobile phone.

The complainant lodged an FIR under Section 392 of the IPC at P.S. Kotwali, Khandwa.

During the investigation, the police seized the stolen articles and a knife from the respondents.

During the trial (Sessions Trial No. 500119/2016), the prosecution witnesses provided conflicting testimonies; notably, the complainant identified the accused in her examination-in-chief but failed to do so during cross-examination two months later.

The Sessions Judge, Khandwa, acquitted the respondents on September 5, 2017.

The State filed this petition under Section 378(3) of the CrPC seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal.

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a manifest error or perversity by acquitting the respondents despite the initial identification by the complainant in her examination-in-chief.

2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with an order of acquittal when the prosecution witnesses turned hostile or provided contradictory evidence.

Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code regarding robbery and Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure concerning appeals against acquittal.

The principle that appellate interference is limited to findings that are "palpably wrong" or "manifestly erroneous" as established in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat (1996) 9 SCC 225.

The standard of "double presumption of innocence" in favor of an acquitted accused as per Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka (1997) 7 SCC 110.

The principle that if two reasonable conclusions are possible, the view favoring the accused must be adopted as held in Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023) 6 SCC 605.

The Court observed that while the complainant (PW-1) identified the accused on April 6, 2017, she subsequently resiled during cross-examination on June 28, 2017, citing her old age and poor eyesight as reasons for her inability to identify them.

The Court noted that the prosecution failed to declare PW-1 and PW-3 hostile; therefore, their statements in cross-examination—which favored the defense—remained binding on the prosecution.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to examine independent seizure witnesses (Amjad and Abid), leaving the recovery of articles unsupported by neutral testimony.

Applying the 'double presumption of innocence' principle, the Court reasoned that the Trial Court had assigned cogent reasons for disbelieving the witnesses and that its findings were neither perverse nor impossible.

The High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to grant leave to appeal and maintained the acquittal of the respondents for the offence under Section 392 of the IPC.