MP HC Refuses State Leave To Appeal Two Men’s Ganja Acquittal, Citing Material Contradictions In Prosecution Evidence

The State sought leave to appeal under Section 378(III) read with Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. against the Special Judge’s judgment dated 10 April 2008 acquitting the respondents of the offence under Sections 8(c) and 20(2)(B) of the NDPS Act.

The State contended that the ganja seizure was proved and that the trial court had wrongly relied on procedural irregularities. The respondents relied on contradictions and omissions in the prosecution witnesses’ accounts and submitted that the trial court had properly assessed the evidence.

Section 378(III) read with Section 378(1) of the Cr.P.C. provides the procedural basis for the State’s application for leave to appeal against acquittal; the alleged offence was under Sections 8(c) and 20(2)(B) of the NDPS Act.

Under Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat, an appellate court should first determine whether the acquittal is palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable before reappraising the evidence.

Ajit Savant Majagvai v. State of Karnataka and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. reaffirm that an acquittal carries a strengthened presumption of innocence and should not be disturbed where a reasonable view favouring the accused is available; interference is justified where the finding is perverse, illegal, or impossible.

The High Court found that the trial court had assessed the evidence and given cogent reasons for acquittal. Material contradictions and omissions in the prosecution witnesses’ statements supported the trial court’s conclusion that the prosecution had not established its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Applying the heightened restraint applicable to appeals against acquittal, the High Court found no perversity, illegality, or material error warranting interference.

The petition was dismissed.