Non-explanation of injuries sustained by accused during incident discredits prosecution version and justifies acquittal.

The State appealed against a judgment dated 24.07.2017 passed by the JMFC, Birsinghpur Pali, which acquitted the respondents of offenses under Sections 324 r/w 34 and 323 r/w 34 of the IPC

The prosecution alleged that on 08.03.2012, during a dispute over household items, respondent Mohan Singh bit the finger of the complainant (Kalyan Singh), while respondent Nandalal hit him with a burning piece of wood

The incident purportedly arose from a long-standing ancestral land dispute between the brothers

The trial court acquitted the accused due to inconsistencies in witness testimonies and lack of independent corroboration

1. Whether the trial court’s order of acquittal was perverse or based on a misappreciation of evidence given the testimonies of injured witnesses

2. Whether the prosecution’s failure to explain the delay in filing the FIR and the non-disclosure of injuries sustained by the accused vitiated the case

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

It relied on the landmark principle from Lakshmi Singh v. State of Bihar (1976), which dictates that the non-explanation of injuries sustained by the accused suggests the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence

Furthermore, it applied the standards for appellate interference in acquittals as summarized in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024): an appellate court must not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "possible" or "plausible" view, even if a contrary view exists

the prosecution failed to prove the original FIR recorded in the Daily Diary (Rojnamcha), and the exhibited FIR (Ex.P/4) was unsigned by the informant

there was an unexplained delay of nearly 22 hours in reporting the incident

the court noted significant "exaggerations and variations" among the testimonies of family-member witnesses (PW-1 to PW-4); for instance, PW-1 claimed his finger was severed, but medical evidence and trial court observations showed no such injury

Crucially, the prosecution suppressed the existence of a cross-FIR filed by the accused and failed to explain injuries sustained by the respondents, which, per Lakshmi Singh, made the entire genesis of the incident doubtful

One prosecution witness (PW-3) even admitted in cross-examination that the accused did not beat his father

The High Court reaffirmed that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal and that the appellate court should only interfere in cases of manifest illegality. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was affirmed