Inconsistency in eyewitness testimony and lack of forensic corroboration justify acquittal in a murder trial.

The deceased, Ramayan Kashyap, was allegedly assaulted on 28.11.2011 by seven accused persons using battle-axes and sticks due to prior enmity.

PW-10 (informant/brother) and PW-12 (brother) claimed to be eyewitnesses who were also assaulted during the incident.

The deceased died of cranio-cerebral injuries.

The Trial Court (Additional Sessions Judge, Janjgir) acquitted all respondents of charges under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302/149, and 323/149 of the IPC on 21.03.2013.

The State and the complainant filed these acquittal appeals challenging the Trial Court's findings.

1. Whether the death of the deceased, Ramayan Kashyap, was homicidal in nature?

2. Whether the accused persons/respondents were the perpetrators of the crime based on the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses?

3. Whether there is any patent illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal warranting interference by the Appellate Court?

The court applied Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal, emphasizing the presumption of innocence.

It relied on the principles established in Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala, which dictates that an appellate court should be slow to reverse an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "possible one".

Additionally, the court applied the criteria from Mallappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka, stating that if two views are possible, the one in favor of the accused must be followed, and reversal requires the demonstration of "illegality, perversity or error of law".

Sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the IPC regarding murder and unlawful assembly were the substantive laws considered.

While the court affirmed the homicidal nature of death based on the post-mortem report (Ex.P-13), it found the evidence regarding the perpetrators' identity insufficient.

The court noted material contradictions between the court testimony of PW-10, PW-11, and PW-12 and their police statements under Section 161 CrPC.

The eyewitnesses' conduct was deemed "unnatural" as they did not raise an alarm, failed to inform villagers during the night, and expressed only "suspicion" during the initial inquest.

Furthermore, the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses (Suresh and Konda) who were reportedly with the deceased.

The recovery of weapons was discarded because seizure witnesses (PW-8 and PW-9) turned hostile and the forensic query report (Ex.P-14) found no human blood on the seized items.

Finally, the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR further weakened the prosecution's case.

It found no patent illegality or perversity in the acquittal.

Consequently, the court dismissed both the State’s and the complainant’s appeals, affirming the acquittal of all seven respondents/accused persons.