Omissions in police statements regarding eyewitness status and presence at the scene justify acquittal in murder trials.

The State appealed an acquittal order dated March 29, 2003, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jamnagar, regarding a 1995 incident

The prosecution alleged that on February 14, 1995, the accused and a co-accused assaulted Rama Lakhman Rabari with a knife in the outskirts of village Bankoda, causing his death

The case rested primarily on a sole eyewitness (PW-10), dog-tracking evidence, and the alleged recovery of a weapon

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent, leading the State to file this appeal under Section 378 of the CrPC

1. Whether the Trial Court committed a patent perversity in discarding the testimony of the sole eyewitness, PW-10

2. Whether the circumstantial evidence, including dog-tracking and weapon recovery, was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt

3. Whether the High Court, in an appeal against acquittal, should interfere with a plausible view taken by the Trial Court

The court applied Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 378 of the CrPC

The court followed appellate principles for acquittal cases established in Surendra Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2025 INSC 114) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka, emphasizing the "double presumption of innocence" and the rule that if two reasonable views are possible, the view favoring the accused must be adopted

The Court assessed the evidentiary value of tracking dogs as merely corroborative, not substantive, evidence

The Court found the sole eyewitness (PW-10) unreliable due to material contradictions regarding the time of the incident and his physical location

Crucially, the Investigating Officer admitted that PW-10 had not claimed to be an eyewitness in his original police statement

The conduct of the witness—failing to raise an alarm or assist the victim on a busy road—was deemed unnatural

Furthermore, all independent panch witnesses for the recovery of clothes and the weapon turned hostile, rendering the alleged discoveries unproven

Regarding the dog-tracking, the handler admitted the scent trail was vulnerable to interruption and the dog only stopped at a house identified by the police, not by independent scent

The Court reasoned that while the death was homicidal, the prosecution failed to bridge the gap between "may be true" and "must be true" regarding the identity of the assailant

The appeal was dismissed, and the acquittal of Kana Natha Ahir was confirmed

The Court held that in the absence of trustworthy ocular evidence or a complete chain of circumstances, the mere existence of a motive and medical evidence of homicidal death cannot sustain a conviction

Order of acquittal maintained