Leave to appeal acquittal denied where ocular testimony lacked corroboration and medical evidence remained unproved.

On November 29, 2013, the complainant, Keshav Das Prajapati, alleged that the respondents damaged the boundary of his agricultural field and subsequently assaulted him with fists, kicks, and sticks when questioned.

An FIR was registered under Sections 294, 323/34, and 506 Part II of the IPC.

Following a trial, the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jatara, acquitted the respondents in Criminal Case No. 1150/2013 on August 26, 2017, citing a failure by the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The State of Madhya Pradesh subsequently filed this application under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) seeking leave to appeal the acquittal.

1. Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was perverse, illegal, or based on a misreading of evidence such that leave to appeal should be granted under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C.

2. Whether the non-examination of the doctor and the hostility of eyewitnesses weakened the prosecution's case to the extent of justifying an acquittal.

The court applied Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. regarding the grant of leave to appeal against acquittal.

It relied on the established principle that an order of acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and interference is only permitted if the findings are perverse or manifestly illegal.

the court applied the doctrine from Tota Singh and Another v. State of Punjab (1987) 2 SCC 529, which mandates that if two views are possible on the evidence, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted.

The High Court observed that the trial court’s decision was grounded in several evidentiary deficiencies. Primarily, the alleged eyewitnesses, Himmat and Lakhan, turned hostile and denied the incident entirely.

The court noted that the medical evidence was not duly proved as the doctor was not examined, leaving only evidence of minor scratches and chest pain which failed to substantiate a serious assault.

Applying the Tota Singh doctrine, the Court reasoned that the trial court took a "plausible and reasonable view" of the contradictions and lack of corroboration. Since the prosecution failed to bridge the gap between suspicion and proof beyond reasonable doubt, the High Court found no grounds to substitute the trial court’s findings for its own.

The Court answered the issues by affirming that the burden of proof remained on the prosecution and had not been met due to material contradictions and lack of reliable corroboration. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the proposed criminal appeal was rejected at the threshold.