Inconsistency in witness testimony and medical evidence regarding injury causation justifies acquittal in criminal appeal.

The State appealed against a judgment dated 02.05.2014 by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Tikamgarh, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 148, 323/149, 294, and 506-B of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 09.02.2009, the accused intercepted the complainant, Pramod Kumar (PW-9), and others, and assaulted Pramod with lathis, rendering him unconscious.

The defense contended that the injuries were sustained in a motorcycle accident while the victim was intoxicated and that the case was filed due to prior enmity.

1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the testimony of the injured witness and other eye-witnesses.

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt given the contradictions in ocular evidence and medical reports.

Section 378(1) of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

Principles established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), which mandate that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "possible view," even if a contrary view exists.

Doctrine from Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), emphasizing that interference is only justified in cases of patent perversity, misreading of evidence, or substantial miscarriage of justice.

The Court observed significant material contradictions between the FIR and the testimonies of PW-9 (injured) and PW-7 (complainant). PW-9 could not identify three of the six accused due to darkness, which invalidated the charge of rioting under Section 148 IPC.

Witnesses Sultan (PW-3) and Shyamlal (PW-8) did not support the prosecution, and PW-10 testified that the victim's injuries resulted from a motorcycle accident.

Dr. Arvind Yadav (PW-15) confirmed that all 10 injuries were on the right side of the body, which was consistent with a fall from a motorcycle rather than a multi-person assault.

The Court found that the trial court’s decision to grant the "benefit of doubt" was reasonable given the lack of identification, prior enmity, and medical evidence favoring the defense's accident theory.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the acquittal.