Inference with acquittal is impermissible when the prosecution fails to investigate cross-versions and establish the place of occurrence.

The prosecution alleged that on September 7, 2005, the respondents restrained and assaulted Neeraj Thakur (PW4) and Naveen Kumar (PW5). When Ajay Pal Singh (PW1) intervened, accused Devender Sharma allegedly struck him on the head with a stick

The Trial Court convicted the respondents under Sections 341, 323, and 325 read with Section 34 of the IPC

On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge (Appellate Court) set aside the conviction, citing material contradictions and the failure to investigate cross-FIRs arising from the same incident

The State appealed this acquittal to the High Court

1. Whether the High Court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal where a possible alternative view exists

2. Whether the failure of the Investigating Officer to investigate both the case and the counter-case (cross-FIRs) together vitiated the prosecution's case

3. Whether material contradictions in ocular testimony and discrepancies in the medical requisition (MLC application) justified the acquittal

The Court applied the settled principle that an appellate court should only interfere with an acquittal if the judgment is patently perverse, based on a misreading of evidence, or where no other reasonable view is possible (Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand; Tulasareddi v. State of Karnataka)

Regarding cross-cases, it applied the doctrine that a case and counter-case are two versions of the same incident and ought to be investigated by the same officer and tried together to prevent miscarriage of justice (State of M.P. v. Mishrilal; Kuldeep Yadav v. State)

It further applied the principle that while enmity is a "double-edged weapon" furnishing motive for crime, it also necessitates cautious scrutiny to rule out false implication

The Court observed that the initial medical application (Ext.PW6/C) stated Ajay Pal Singh (PW1) reported the incident, yet the trial testimony claimed the informant was Neeraj Thakur (PW4), suggesting a concealment of the initial version

Furthermore, the Investigating Officer (PW6) admitted to not investigating the cross-FIR (No. 187/2005) filed against the informant's party, violating the legal obligation to investigate both versions to cull out the truth

The Court found material contradictions between PW1 and PW4 regarding the spot of occurrence and the sequence of events

Additionally, despite claims of heavy bleeding, the I.O. failed to recover blood-stained soil or stones from the scene, creating doubt about the location of the incident given the admitted strained relations and pending civil litigation between the parties

The Court affirmed that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the lack of a joint investigation into the cross-cases and inconsistencies in witness testimony

The respondents were directed to furnish bail bonds as per Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.