Leave to appeal against acquittal is unwarranted where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible.

The State sought leave to appeal against the judgment dated 6 April 2022 of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, acquitting Kartik Ram Patel of offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that Indrasen, employed as a watchman at a rice mill, left home on 10 June 2020 for his night duty but did not return. After missing-person information was lodged on 16 June 2020, an unidentified male dead body was found in the Agar River at village Mohtra. A Marg inquiry and subsequently an FIR under Sections 302 and 201 IPC were registered.

The prosecution relied, inter alia, on identification proceedings, the accused’s disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, recoveries allegedly made pursuant thereto, medical evidence, and witness testimony.

After examining thirteen witnesses and considering the documentary evidence, the Trial Court held that the prosecution had failed to establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted him.

Whether the State had established a prima facie or arguable case warranting grant of leave to appeal against the respondent’s acquittal?

Whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was perverse, impossible, or otherwise liable to interference in an appeal against acquittal?

Whether the defects in identification of the dead body, the unexplained handling of the body, and the failure to conduct forensic examination materially weakened the prosecution case?

The prosecution case concerned offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, relating respectively to murder and causing disappearance of evidence.

The Court considered the evidentiary significance of recoveries allegedly made pursuant to a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.

Relying on Asif Mamu v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 (1) CCSC 56 (SC), the Court recognised that defective investigation, when coupled with infirmities in the prosecution evidence, may justify acquittal where guilt is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It further applied the rule in State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, that appellate interference with an acquittal is limited: where two views are reasonably possible, the acquittal cannot be set aside merely because the appellate court considers conviction to be more probable; interference is warranted only where the view taken is impossible or perverse.

The High Court found that the Trial Court’s reasoning was based on material evidence and could not be characterised as irrelevant or perverse.

Although the deceased’s father and brother had reported him missing on 16 June 2020, the record indicated that the unidentified dead body had been handed over to another person for burial on the same date. The prosecution gave no satisfactory explanation as to why identification proceedings were not conducted, how the body was disposed of, or how the last rites were performed.

The Investigating Officer also failed to send the unidentified body and connected articles for forensic examination, further weakening the evidentiary chain.

In light of these investigative deficiencies and the other infirmities noted by the Trial Court, the High Court held that the acquittal represented a possible and legally sustainable view.

The State’s allegations of misappreciation of witness and medical evidence did not demonstrate perversity or impossibility warranting appellate intervention.

Applying the restricted standard governing appeals against acquittal, it found no ground to conclude that the Trial Court’s view was impossible or perverse.

The application for leave to appeal was therefore rejected, and the consequential appeal was dismissed.