Testimony of interested witnesses suffering from material improvements and contradictions cannot ground a conviction against acquittal.

The appellant (prosecutrix) filed an appeal against the judgment dated 23.09.2022 passed by the Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act), Sehore, which acquitted the respondents of offenses under Sections 294, 354(ka), 323, 506 (Part-II), and 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecutrix alleged that on 02.01.2021, the respondents diverted water onto her pathway, and when questioned, Respondent No. 1 caught her hand with ill intent and assaulted her with a spade while both respondents hurled caste-based abuses.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused citing material contradictions and unreliable witness testimonies.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence.

2. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and corroborated witnesses was reliable enough to reverse the order of acquittal.

The Court applied Section 378(4) of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

An appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the Trial Court's view is "patent[ly] perverse" or "wholly unreasonable," as acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

Principles established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024).

Requirements for proving offenses under the SC/ST Act, specifically that the act must occur in public view.

The Court found that the prosecutrix (PW-1) admitted to prior land disputes, which affected her credibility regarding the motive for false implication.

Significant contradictions were noted: PW-1 claimed her husband (PW-2) arrived after the incident, while her son (PW-3) gave conflicting accounts of family rifts.

PW-1’s court testimony included "material improvements" regarding the assault that were absent in her Section 161 CrPC statement.

Medically, PW-7 and PW-4 stated the injuries were simple and consistent with slipping on a wet pathway rather than a deliberate assault.

Regarding the SC/ST Act, the Court observed from the spot map (Ex.P-2) that the incident occurred in a private field, not within "public view".

Consequently, the Trial Court’s view was deemed a "plausible and reasonable view".

The High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of acquittal.