MP HC Upholds 3 Acquittals In Killing: Specific Role Evidence Was Missing For Two, And No Sharp Injury Supported The Third Man’s Pharsa Claim

The State appealed under Section 378 CrPC against the acquittal of Dwarka Prasad, Radharaman and Sant Kumar of offences under Sections 148 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that the respondents participated in a group assault on Tuntun alias Dinesh, who died from blunt-force injuries, including fatal head injuries.

The trial court acquitted the respondents; other accused were convicted or acquitted in separate trials, and the appeal concerning one deceased accused had abated.

The State argued that the trial court had given undue weight to minor discrepancies and that the respondents’ alleged membership of the unlawful assembly attracted liability under Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC.

Section 378 CrPC permits appellate review of an acquittal, but the presumption of innocence is strengthened by the acquittal, and an appellate court should interfere only for compelling and substantial reasons; where two reasonable views are possible, the view favouring the accused must prevail (*Suchand Pal v. Phani Pal*, as quoted at pp. 7–8).

The principles in *Muralidhar alias Gidda v. State of Karnataka* require due weight to the trial court’s assessment of witness credibility and prohibit reversal where its view is reasonable and possible; a different view on reappraisal alone is insufficient.

Sections 148 and 302/149 IPC were the charged offences, but liability under them required evidence supporting the respondents’ participation in the unlawful assembly and the alleged common object.

The Court found no basis to disturb the trial court’s assessment.

As to Dwarka Prasad, only PW1 specifically attributed a pharsa to him; other witnesses did not identify his weapon or specifically implicate him, and no sharp-edged injury was found on the deceased.

As to Radharaman, PW1’s in-court evidence and PW10’s testimony did not specify a weapon or make a specific allegation; the FIR’s assertion that he carried a lathi was not substantive evidence.

As to Sant Kumar, neither PW1’s examination-in-chief nor PW10 made a specific allegation, and the FIR allegation that he carried a pharsa was unsupported by any corresponding sharp-edged injury.

In light of these evidentiary deficiencies, the acquittals were a reasonable view, not perverse or contrary to the record.

It affirmed the judgment dated 22 June 2005 insofar as it acquitted Dwarka Prasad, Radharaman and Sant Kumar of the charged offences, and dismissed the appeal.