P&H HC Upholds Acquittal Of 3 Men Accused Of Hitting Motorcycle From Behind, Citing Delayed FIR And Hospital Records Describing Road Accident

The complainant alleged that on 12 April 2018, the respondents followed his motorcycle in a car and struck it from behind, causing injuries to him and two pillion riders.

An FIR under Sections 307 read with Section 34 IPC was registered on 22 April 2018; the respondents were later charged under Sections 307 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC.

The trial court acquitted them on 28 January 2025.

The complainant appealed against the acquittal, alleging that the trial court had wrongly assessed the injured witnesses’ evidence and the medical record.

Sections 307 and 325 read with Section 34 IPC require proof of the respective offence’s essential ingredients, including the requisite intention or knowledge for an offence under Section 307 IPC and common intention where Section 34 is invoked.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reassess the evidence but should not interfere merely because another view is possible; where two reasonable views are available, the trial court’s view should stand. An acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and interference is warranted where the trial court’s approach or conclusions are perverse or clearly erroneous.

The Court relied on Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 495, Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. and others, AIR 2026 Supreme Court 1160, and Sambasivan v. State of Kerala, (1998) 5 SCC 412.

The Court found that the prosecution account was weakened by the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, inconsistencies between the FIR and the witnesses’ trial testimony, and material improvements by the complainant and injured witnesses.

The medical records described the injuries as resulting from a roadside accident and did not record an assault or an intention to kill.

The prosecution also failed to establish that the respondents had planned to kill the complainant or otherwise acted with the requisite intention; the evidence of a single collision did not, in the circumstances, establish that intention.

Applying the heightened restraint applicable to appeals against acquittal, the Court held that the trial court’s assessment was a reasonable view of the evidence and disclosed no perversity.

It held that the evidence did not conclusively establish the offences charged and that the trial court’s acquittal was not perverse or contrary to the record.

The appeal against acquittal was dismissed.