Medical evidence of accidental drowning overrides inconsistent ocular testimony in the absence of corroborating forensic proof.

The State of Chhattisgarh appealed against the judgment dated 27.07.2017, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC

On 10.03.2016, a merg intimation was filed reporting that the deceased, Naihar Lal Dhanuhaar, had gone fishing at Amahwa Nala the previous day and failed to return.

His body was subsequently found in the water

The post-mortem report by Dr. Deepak Singh (PW-13) concluded the cause of death was asphyxia due to drowning and classified the nature of death as accidental

During the investigation, the police suspected the respondent of assaulting the deceased and drowning him.

The prosecution relied on the testimony of an alleged eye-witness (PW-7) and the seizure of a wooden stick, a liquor bottle, and a tangi (axe) following the respondent’s memorandum statement

1. Whether the death of the deceased, Naihar Lal Dhanuhaar, was homicidal in nature.

2. Whether the respondent was the perpetrator of the alleged crime.

3. Whether the High Court should interfere with a judgment of acquittal when the Trial Court’s view is plausible.

The Court applied Sections 302 (Murder) and 201 (Causing disappearance of evidence) of the Indian Penal Code

The standard for appellate interference in acquittals established in Jafarudheen and others v. State of Kerala (2022), which emphasizes the "double presumption of innocence" in favor of the accused

Principles from Mallappa and Ors. v. State of Karnataka (2024), which dictate that an appellate court must only reverse an acquittal if the trial court's decision is legally implausible, perverse, or suffers from an error of law or fact

The court also reaffirmed the principle that "suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof"

The Court found that the medical evidence directly contradicted the prosecution's theory of murder.

PW-13 and the inquest report (Ex.P-7) confirmed the death was accidental drowning, noting an absence of visible injuries or rope marks on the body

Regarding the perpetrator's identity, the Court dismissed the testimony of the sole eye-witness, Dileram (PW-7), noting he was intoxicated at the time and admitted to arriving at the spot only after the deceased was already in the water.

PW-7’s name was significantly omitted from the initial merg intimation

Regarding physical evidence, the Court noted that the seized items (stick, bottle, tangi) were common rural articles with no forensic or scientific link to the crime; no blood stains were found, and the medical officer (PW-13) confirmed no injuries matching these weapons were present on the deceased

Consequently, the Court determined the prosecution's case rested on mere suspicion rather than evidence

It concluded that the trial court’s view was a plausible one and lacked any patent illegality or perversity that would justify interference.

The High Court dismissed the acquittal appeal and upheld the trial court’s judgment