Inconsistency in eye-witness testimony and lack of forensic corroboration sustain acquittal in a murder trial.

On 28.11.2011, seven accused persons allegedly formed an unlawful assembly and killed Ramayan Kashyap with sticks and battle-axes due to previous enmity.

PW-10 and PW-12, brothers of the deceased, claimed to be eyewitnesses and alleged they were also assaulted.

The Trial Court, via judgment dated 21.03.2013, acquitted all respondents of charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/149, and 323/149 of the IPC due to material contradictions in witness testimony and lack of corroborating evidence.

Both the State and the complainant (PW-10) appealed the acquittal.

1. Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

2. Whether the accused persons were the perpetrators of the crime.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal based on the evidence on record.

The Court applied the standards for interfering with an acquittal under Section 378 of the CrPC, emphasizing the "double presumption of innocence" in favor of the accused as established in *Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala*.

It further relied on the principles summarized in *Mallappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka*, which dictate that if the Trial Court’s view is a "legally plausible view," the appellate court should not reverse it merely because a contrary view is possible.

The Court also scrutinized the reliability of eyewitness testimony under Section 161 of the CrPC and the evidentiary value of recoveries under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

The Court affirmed that the death was homicidal based on the post-mortem report (Ex.P-13) showing cranio-cerebral injury.

However, it found the prosecution failed to prove the accused's involvement.

The testimonies of PW-10, PW-11, and PW-12 were riddled with material omissions and contradictions compared to their prior Section 161 CrPC statements and the FIR.

Their conduct was deemed "unnatural" because they failed to raise an alarm or inform villagers despite witnessing the assault.

Furthermore, independent witness PW-6 did not support the eyewitnesses, and the seizure witnesses (PW-8 and PW-9) turned hostile.

The forensic query report (Ex.P-14) failed to find human blood on the seized weapons, and the prosecution offered no explanation for the delay in lodging the FIR.

Consequently, the Court held that the Trial Court's decision to acquit was a reasonable and plausible interpretation of the facts.

The High Court held that there was no patent illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's judgment.

Both appeals (by the State and the complainant) were dismissed, maintaining the acquittal of all seven respondents.