Medical Testimony Contradicting Ocular Evidence and Unexplained Delay in Filing FIR Justify Acquittal in Criminal Appeal

The State appealed an acquittal order dated 29.07.2009 passed by the Fast Track Court, Botad.

The prosecution alleged that on 17.06.2007, the complainant, Ashokbhai Nanjibhai, was assaulted with sticks and a dharia (sickle) by the respondents after he asked them not to cut a pipal tree on his grandfather's land.

It was further alleged that the respondents snatched a gold chain worth 2 tolas.

The trial court acquitted the accused of charges under Sections 397 (robbery with attempt to cause death/grievous hurt), 447 (criminal trespass), 504 (intentional insult), and 114 (abettor present) of the IPC, and Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act.

1. Whether the trial court was justified in passing the judgment of acquittal based on the ocular and medical evidence presented.

2. Whether the prosecution proved the identity of the accused and the recovery of the stolen property beyond a reasonable doubt.

3. Whether there are "substantial and compelling reasons" or manifest illegalities requiring the Appellate Court to interfere with the order of acquittal.

The court applied Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

It relied on the "double presumption" of innocence principle, where an acquittal reinforces the initial presumption of innocence.

The court cited Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007) and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) to establish that an appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible, unless the trial court's view is "perverse" or "vitiated by manifest illegality".

It also referenced Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka (2024) regarding the high threshold for reversing acquittals.

The High Court found several fatal infirmities in the prosecution's case. First, while the complainant (PW-1) alleged assault with sharp weapons, the medical officers (PW-2 and PW-6) testified that the injuries were inconsistent with a dharia and were more likely caused by a fall from a running motorcycle.

Second, there was an unexplained 24-hour delay in filing the FIR, which the court viewed with suspicion as the complainant was conscious.

Third, the identity of Accused No. 3 was never established through a Test Identification Parade, and PW-5 (the complainant's nephew) only claimed to have seen the backs of the accused.

Fourth, the court noted a history of prior animosity between the parties, suggesting the complaint might have been an attempt to exert pressure regarding previous disputes.

The court concluded that the trial court's appreciation of these contradictions was reasonable and not perverse.

The court held that the State failed to produce credible evidence to connect the accused to the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Since the trial court’s view was a "probable" and "reasonable" conclusion based on the evidence, the appellate court declined to interfere.

The High Court ordered that the bail bonds be cancelled.