Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

State vs Sunder Singh And Anr on 22 May, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB]

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                        JODHPUR
                   D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 7/2005

State of Rajasthan
                                                                        ----Appellant
                                        Versus
1. Sunder Singh S/o Sh. Bhom Singh
2. Munni Singh S/o Rup Singh.
     Both by caste Rajput, resident of Chak-6
     G.M. Gheghada, Police Station Chhattargarh,
     District Bikaner.
                                                                     ----Respondents


For Appellant(s)              :     Mr. Ramesh Dewasi, PP
For Respondent(s)             :     Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi
                                    Mr. H.R. Rawal, (Amicus Curiae)



      HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH

Order

Reserved on: 24/04/2025 Pronounced on: 22/05/2025

Per Hon'ble Mr. Sandeep Shah, J:

1. The present appeal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. has been

filed by the State of Rajasthan being aggrieved against the

judgment dated 03.09.2004 passed by Sh. Yogesh Chandra Swami

RHJS, learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Cases & learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bikaner in Sessions

Case No.8/2002, whereby the learned Trial Court has acquitted

the accused-respondents for offences punishable under Section

302, 323 & 341 of IPC read with Section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act.

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (2 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

Facts of the case:-

2. The brief facts of the case are that the complainant,

Dhannaram Meghwal (father of the deceased), submitted a written

report before the Station House Officer, Police Station

Chhattargarh, on 15.12.2001 at around 6:15 PM. In the report, he

stated that he resides with his family at Chak-6 G.M., where they

cultivate agricultural land in their murabba (agricultural field).

Adjacent to his field, at a distance of one murabba, lies the field of

Bhom Singh Rajput. Furthermore, there is an additional parcel of

land, approximately 20 bighas of land adjoining the field of

Bhom Singh Rajput. It was stated that upon the land in question

on 12th December 2001, the son of Dhannaram i.e. Banshilal was

collecting their crops and he saw that Madan Singh son of Bhom

Singh was grazing their goats on the crop of the complainant,

upon which a verbal altercation took place between Madan Singh

and Banshilal.

2.1 It was further stated that on 15.12.2001 at around 2:00 PM,

Banshilal had gone to village Gheghada to collect flour. While

returning at approximately 3:00 PM, the complainant heard a

commotion and, upon hearing the cries, he, along with his wife

Kalawati, younger son Ramlal, and daughter-in-law Bhanwari

(wife of Banshilal), rushed towards the source of the noise via the

right of way. On reaching the spot, they witnessed Sunder Singh,

Madan Singh, and Munni Singh assaulting Banshilal with gandasis

and lathis. It was specifically alleged that Sunder Singh inflicted a

gandasi blow on Banshilal's head, while Madan Singh and

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (3 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

Munni Singh assaulted him with lathis on his head and shoulders.

The complainant further stated that as they approached the scene

and raised an alarm, the accused persons fled away, leaving

Banshilal behind in an injured state. Banshilal was found lying

unconscious, bleeding profusely from the head. After some time,

he succumbed to the injuries.

3. Based on the aforementioned report, the police had started

their investigation. During the course of the investigation, they

prepared the Panchanama of the deceased's body, conducted a

site inspection, and prepared the site memo. Additionally, they

collected blood-smeared and plain soil samples, as also slippers

etc. It is further revealed that, pursuant to disclosure made by the

accused under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the recovery

of the weapons of offence was effected at the instance of the

accused persons. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the police

filed a charge sheet against the present respondents, excluding

Madan Singh. Thereafter, the learned Trial Court took cognizance

and proceeded with the trial. Charges were framed, and during

the course of the trial, the prosecution examined 17 witnesses and

exhibited 30 documents in support of its case. The accused were

thereafter examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C and in the

difference they denied the allegations and stated that somebody

else has assaulted Banshilal and they have been falsely implicated

only because of the fact of altercation with regard to grazing of

goats in the field is between the accused & Banshilal.

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (4 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

4. The learned Trial Court, after considering the entire record

and hearing the arguments advanced by counsel for both sides,

delivered its judgment dated 03.09.2004, whereby the

accused-respondents were acquitted. The Court held that there

were gross inconsistencies in the testimonies of the

eye-witnesses, and even the recovery made at the instance of the

accused was not duly proved. The learned Trail Court held that the

testimony of the witnesses was impeached and the case was not

made out of settling guilt as against the accused beyond

reasonable doubt, and therefore, acquitted the accused-

respondents.

Argument on behalf of the appellant-State:-

5. Laying a challenge to the above-mentioned judgment, the

learned Public Prosecutor has argued that the learned Trial Court

failed to consider that this was a case of prosecution relying upon

the eye-witnesses and P.W.-5 Kalawati, P.W.-7 Bhanwari,

P.W.-8 Dhannaram & P.W.-9 Om Prakesh, the eye-witness had

categorically stated is this statements that they reached the place

of occurrence and saw the accused assaulting the deceased with

Gandashi & lathis, and therefore, their evidence was reliable and

there were no major contradictions so as to not rely upon their

evidence, as has been done by the learned Trial Court.

6. It was further submitted that the gandasi and lathi were

recovered at the instance of the accused, and both weapons were

found to be blood-stained. Forensic analysis confirmed that the

blood on the weapons matched the blood group of the deceased,

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (5 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

thereby corroborating the prosecution's case that the accused had

used these weapons to assault the deceased. It was contended

that the Trial Court erred in disregarding the recovery as valid and

admissible evidence, which resulted in a miscarriage of justice.

It was further argued that the F.I.R. was promptly lodged, and the

nature of injuries sustained by the deceased was fully

corroborated by the medical evidence, particularly the testimony

of P.W.-1, Dr. Bhaguram. The Trial Court's failure to consider these

material aspects constitutes a grave error, vitiating the finding of

acquittal recorded in favour of the accused-respondents.

Argument        on      behalf       of      the      counsel       for     accused-

respondents:-

7. On the other hand, Mr. Rajiv Bishnoi and Mr. H.R. Rawal

(Amicus Curiae), the counsel for the respondents, submitted that

the learned Trial Court has rightly held that all four eye-witnesses

are planted witnesses and are not eye-witnesses. Their

statements are full of inconsistencies, and all four witnesses have

not supported the version of each other whatsoever. All the

witnesses have tried to show a different route to have reached the

place, and further, the evidence of these witnesses, who are

related witnesses, does not inspire any confidence whatsoever.

8. It has further been argued that the recovery at the instance

of the accused cannot be held to be proved and cannot form the

basis to implicate the accused, as admittedly, it is proved that the

recovery was made from an open place which was accessible to

everyone, and the accused did not have any exclusive access to

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (6 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

the place of recovery. Furthermore, it was stated that the F.S.L.

report has not been exhibited at all, and thus, cannot be relied

upon to implicate the accused based on the recovery or the

alleged presence of blood on the lathi.

8.1 It has further been stated that no blood was found on the

gandasi which was allegedly recovered at the instance of accused

no.1, Sunder Singh. It has also been argued that both the

weapons were not even sealed, and there is no evidence to show

that they were sent to the F.S.L. after being sealed. Therefore, the

learned Trial Court has rightly considered the evidence and given a

categorical finding in paragraph 17 that the accused cannot be

connected with the alleged offence based on the recovery also.

9. It has further been argued that the learned Trial Court has

considered the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses threadbare

and has arrived at a categorical finding that the inconsistencies in

their statements, as well as in their earlier statements recorded

under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C., which have been duly

contradicted, clearly show that their evidence does not inspire any

confidence whatsoever and could not form the basis for convicting

the accused. It was thus argued that the learned Trial Court had

rightly considered all the facts and record of the matter while

acquitting the accused. It was further submitted that the order in

question does not require any interference, more particularly

when hearing an appeal against an order of acquittal, as the

prosecution has failed to bring home the guilt of the accused

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (7 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

beyond reasonable doubt. It is not a case where the view taken by

the learned Trial Court was implausible.

Analysis and reasoning:-

10. Having considered the arguments raised by the learned

counsel for both sides and after perusal of the record, we will deal

with each and every piece of evidence through which the

prosecution has sought to connect the accused with the crime in

question.

(i) Eye witnesses- As far as the 'eye-witnesses' are

concerned, the entire case of the prosecution is based upon the

statements of four eye-witnesses, i.e., P.W.-5 Kalawati (mother of

the deceased), P.W.-7 Bhanwari (wife of the deceased),

P.W.-8 Dhannaram (father of the deceased and the complainant),

and P.W.-11 Ramlal (brother of the deceased). Two more witnesses

were sought to be shown as eye-witnesses in the F.I.R. as well as

in the statements made before the police under Section 161

Cr.P.C. However, both these witnesses, i.e., P.W.-3 Savitri and

P.W.-4 Rajunath, did not support the prosecution's version and

were declared hostile at the request of the learned Public

Prosecutor. Be that as it may, with regard to the statements of the

eye-witnesses, a bare perusal of the testimony of P.W.-5 Kalawati

reveals that she stated the incident took place around two

murabbas away from their place (i.e., 825 + 825 = 1,650 feet

away), and from there they saw all three accused Sunder Singh,

Madan Singh, and Munni Singh assaulting Banshilal. In her

examination-in-chief, she does not specify the exact site

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (8 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

(on body), where the accused allegedly assaulted Banshilal. She

merely states that all three were assaulting him, and further

deposes that she went unconscious at the site itself. During the

course of her cross-examination, she stated that she did not give

any statement to the police whatsoever.

She further stated that nobody from the family had gone to

the house of Bhom Singh to raise a complaint with regard to the

scuffle that took place on 12.12.2001. She further stated that at

the time when they heard the hue and cry, all of them were

present in their hut, which is adjacent to the murabba of

Rajunath, and next to that is the murabba of Jai Singh. She

further admitted that none of them saw from where the accused

came or where they stopped the deceased Banshilal. When she

was confronted with the police statement Exh. D-1, she denied

giving such a statement or informing the police that the accused

were hiding behind a mud mound. She further stated that all four

of them (i.e., Kalawati, Bhanwari, Dhannaram & Ramlal) reached

near Banshilal together. She further admitted that they did not

go to the site in question from the murabba of Rajunath, but

rather went there through the agricultural field of

Hemaram Dhaka. She also admitted that when she reached the

site, Banshilal was lying face down on the road and that the

accused had already fled prior to their arrival at the site.

On the contrary, during her statement before the police

under Section 161, she had stated that all three accused were

hiding behind the mud mound and immediately stopped the

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (9 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

deceased Banshilal when he came near them and started

assaulting him with gandasi and lathi. She further stated that

Banshilal raised an alarm and started screaming, upon which she,

along with her husband, younger son, and daughter-in-law,

reached the site through the agricultural field of Jai Singh. She

further stated that when they reached, the accused threatened

them. It will thus be clear that when P.W.-5 Kalawati was sought to

be contradicted through her statement given before the police

under Section 161, various infirmities and contradictions going to

the root of the matter were found. These were not minor

contradictions, but contradictions that impeached her testimony

altogether.

As far as P.W.-7 Bhanwari (wife of the deceased) is

concerned, a bare perusal of her statement given before the

learned Trial Court reveals that during her examination-in-chief,

she stated that on hearing the cries of her husband, she, along

with her father-in-law, mother-in-law, and brother-in-law, reached

the site. When they arrived, the accused informed them that they

had murdered the deceased and that they could do whatever they

wanted. She further stated that her husband was hit on the head

and there were no other injuries on his body. She expressly

stated, "मेरे पति के सिर में चोट मारी हुई थी और कही ं पर भी चोट नही ं थी।"

During the course of her cross-examination, she stated that the

accused were hiding near the agricultural field of Govind Singh

behind a mud mound. However, she also stated that they came to

know about the incident only after hearing the cries of her

husband, and prior to that, they were sitting in the hut (Dhani).

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (10 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

She further stated that on hearing the cries, they went

through the right of way, not through the agricultural field of

Govind Singh. She further stated that it is wrong that her husband

was lying on the field when they reached; rather, she stated that

the accused were standing there and assaulting the deceased. She

further stated that she cannot say who hit her husband on the

head, as all three were assaulting him together. She further stated

that the police did not inquire anything from her. Upon being

confronted with this, when Exh. D-2, her statement before the

police officials, was shown to highlight the contradiction, she

denied giving any such statement and further stated that her

husband did not run anywhere and was assaulted at the place

where he was stopped and intercepted by the accused. She also

stated that she became unconscious while the accused were still

assaulting her husband. However, a perusal of her statement

before the police officials reveals that the version given was quite

different, and there have been many improvements &

inconsistencies in her statements, as she had stated before the

police officials that the accused started running when they

reached there, and when they arrived, they saw that her husband

was injured and a lot of blood was flowing from his head.

She has further alleged that only Sunder Singh and Munni

Singh were present at the site, whereas in her statement before

the Court, the presence of Madan Singh was also specified, and

even the specific part played by each was mentioned. A perusal of

her statement further reveals that the version given by

P.W.-5 Kalawati is not supported by P.W.-7 Bhanwari. Furthermore,

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (11 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

the injuries on the body of the deceased were not corroborated by

the version of P.W.-7 Bhanwari, as eight injuries were found upon

the body of the deceased on different parts, whereas according to

P.W.-7 Bhanwari, the only injury was on the head of the deceased.

Not only this, she has rather admitted that she is not aware

as to who inflicted the head blow upon the deceased, and has

further stated that she did not give any statement to the police.

It is thus clear that her version is full of major contradictions and

does not support the version given by the other alleged

eye-witnesses. Furthermore, the version given by her is not

supported by the site plan Exh. P-6, wherein the incident has been

shown to have occurred at three different places, whereas

P.W.-7 Bhanwari states that her husband was assaulted at one

place, where he was stopped by the accused, and not at the other

places (as attempted to be shown in the site plan or as tried to be

suggested in the investigation conducted by the police officials).

As far as P.W.-8 Dhannaram is concerned, he admits in his

statement that a scuffle took place on the 12th, and on the 14th

the police came to the site and stated that a false case had been

filed by him against Bhom Singh. He then states that on the 15th,

the accused along with Madan Singh wrongfully restrained the

deceased Banshilal and started assaulting him. Upon this,

Banshilal started shouting, and hearing the noise, he along with

his son Ramlal, his wife, and daughter-in-law Bhanwari ran to the

site and saw that Sunder Singh was holding a gandasi in his hand,

while the other two were holding lathis, and all three were

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (12 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

assaulting Banshilal. He also stated that all three threatened them

when they reached, and thereafter fled the scene.

However, during his cross-examination, he gave a totally different

version and the version that appears unnatural to normal human

conduct as he stated that after the incident, he did not pick up the

dead body of Banshilal but instead went straight to the police

station by bus. He further stated that Exh.-14 was written in the

handwriting of his son Ramlal, which was written after reaching

Chhattargarh, and only thereafter was the F.I.R. lodged. He claims

he returned to the site later that night, by which time no one was

present with Banshilal's body. This version is, in itself,

unbelievable and not supported by his earlier stand before the

learned Trial Court or before the police officials during the course

of investigation under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

He further admitted that at the time they heard the hue and

cry, all of them were sitting in his hut, which was located more

than one murabba away from the site of the incident. He further

stated that he did not see the accused hiding anywhere and had

only seen them assaulting the deceased. He denied having given

any statement to the police regarding the accused hiding prior to

the assault. He further stated that Sunder Singh delivered three or

four blows to the head of the deceased, while Munni Singh and

Madan Singh delivered two and three blows each, respectively. He

also admitted that he was not aware of the exact number of blows

inflicted by the accused upon the deceased, nor had he counted

them. He further stated that by the time they reached the site,

the accused had already fled and were not present there.

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (13 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

Strangely, he mentioned that after hearing the cries, they

proceeded to the site very slowly, and further added that they

approached the site through the agricultural field of Govind Singh.

He further stated that after reaching the site, the police did

not collect anything from there, and for several days and that the

police failed to collect the blood-smeared soil or any other material

from the scene of occurrence. A perusal of the statement of

P.W.-8 Dhannaram leaves no room for doubt that, according to his

own version, he did not see how many blows were inflicted by the

accused and nor did he count them. He has also described a

completely different route to reach the site, which is contrary to

the versions given by P.W.-5 Kalawati and P.W.-7 Bhanwari.

Moreover, his assertion that all four of them proceeded "very

slowly" towards the site clearly indicates that the conduct of the

alleged eye-witnesses is highly unnatural and unbelievable, as no

close relative (father is the present case) would proceed slowly

upon witnessing their son/husband/brother being assaulted in

such a brutal manner. Thus, the testimony of P.W.-8 Dhannaram,

who is also the complainant, does not inspire confidence and is

riddled with material contradictions.

The next eye-witness, P.W.-11 Ramlal, deposed before the

Court that all three accused were hiding behind a mud mound and

that he, along with his family members, was sitting at home. Upon

hearing cries and shouting, they stepped outside and saw three

persons (not named) assaulting someone. Thereafter, they

proceeded to the site via the right of way. He further stated that

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (14 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

Sunder Singh assaulted Banshilal with a gandasi, while the other

two accused assaulted him with lathis. Upon their arrival at the

scene, the accused allegedly threatened the witness and his family

members and then fled. During the course of cross-examination,

the witness admitted that he did not actually see the accused

hiding. However, he claimed that upon later noticing foot-marks,

he inferred that the accused had been hiding. He also stated that

when he first saw Banshilal, the later was lying on the ground. The

witness was confronted for contradictions in his testimony,

particularly through his prior statement recorded under Section

161 Cr.P.C., marked as Exh. D-3. In that earlier statement, he had

narrated a different version, including the route taken to the site

through the field of Jai Singh and a different account of the

alleged hiding and assault by the accused.

Again a perusal of the statement of P.W.-11 Ramlal further

reveals that he does not support the version given by

P.W.-5 Kalawati, P.W.-7 Bhanwari, and P.W.-8 Dhannaram. Rather,

he presents an entirely different version of the events. There

exists a stark contradiction between the accounts of all four

alleged eye-witnesses concerning the manner in which they

reached the site, the route they took, what they allegedly

witnessed, and the specific overt acts attributed to each of the

accused. The learned Trial Court has rightly examined the

evidence and threadbare and arrived at the conclusion that the

versions given by all these witnesses were inconsistent and not

corroborated by the testimony of P.W.-18 Rajkumar Choudhary,

the Investigating Officer, who stated that the incident of assault

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (15 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

occurred at three different locations, as depicted in Exh. P-6,

(site plan) marked as points X, X-A and X-B.

The Investigating Officer further stated that, as per his

investigation, all the eye-witnesses approached the site of the

incident through the field of Rajunath, as it was the nearest route

from their hut (Dhani). However, this fact is not supported by the

testimony of any of the four alleged eye-witnesses. It is thus

evident that the defence was able to successfully impeach the

credibility of all four related eye-witnesses. A careful and

meticulous examination of their testimonies reveals that they

appear to be planted witnesses, having failed to remain consistent

in their versions. Furthermore, the distance from their dwelling to

the site of the incident casts serious doubt on their claim of having

witnessed the occurrence, a doubt which is further corroborated

by the statements of P.W.-11 Ramlal and P.W.-7 Bhanwari.

Furthermore, the version put forth by the prosecution

witnesses is not corroborated either by the postmortem report or

by the testimony of the doctor who conducted the postmortem,

P.W.-1 Dr. Bhaguram. The number and nature of injuries described

by the eye-witnesses materially differ from those recorded in the

postmortem report. Notably, no injury attributable to a sharp

edged weapon was found, and even during the examination of the

Investigating Officer, no question was posed to the doctor to

substantiate whether such injuries could have been caused by a

lathi or a gandasi. Therefore, the entire chain of evidence fails to

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (16 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

inspire confidence and does not establish the guilt of the accused

beyond reasonable doubt.

11. It is merely a case of possibility of guilt, and not one where

guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt. This aspect

has been recently considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

case of Thammaraya v. State of Karnataka, reported in 2025

(3) SCC 590, wherein the Court distinguished the critical gap

between "may be guilty" and "must be guilty". The Hon'ble

Supreme Court observed as under:-

"16. It is also a fundamental principle that a court can convict an accused only if their guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt and not merely on the possibility of guilt. The gap between "may be guilty" and "must be guilty" is significant, separating uncertain speculations from definitive conclusions. Thus, it is the duty of the prosecution to elevate its case from the realm of "may be true" to "must be true"

(ii) Recovery:- The prosecution has further tried to implicate

the accused-respondents with the offence, based upon the alleged

recovery which was done at the instance of information given by

the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. As far as the

'recovery' is concerned, it was shown that vide Exh.-16, a

lathi measuring approximately 4 feet 10 inches in length was

recovered at the instance of information provided by Munni Singh,

with three to four visible traces of blood on it. Furthermore,

Exh.-17 was prepared to depict the location from which the

recovery was effected. Exh.-18 was prepared to show that a

blood-stained gandasi was recovered at the instance of

information given by Sunder Singh, and Exh.-19 was the map

prepared for this recovery. The prosecution examined

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (17 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

P.W.-12 Bhikharam and P.W.-16 Kaluram as witnesses in whose

presence the recovery was effected.

A bare perusal of the cross-examination of both the

witnesses reveals that they had admitted that both of them were

related to the deceased, and thus, it is clear that they were not

independent witnesses. However, a further perusal of the

statements reveals that they had admitted that the place from

which the recovery was done was an open place and was

accessible to all. Rather, P.W.-12 Bhikharam had stated that the

articles were not even shown to him in Court, and thus, it is clear

that he cannot fortify the fact of any recovery whatsoever.

As far as P.W.-16 Kaluram is concerned, he was shown the

alleged lathi, and the Court made an observation that no blood

could be seen upon the lathi and gandasi in question, a fact which

was admitted by the witness as well. These facts, coupled with the

fact that the articles were not sealed in the presence of any

witness, make the entire recovery doubtful, and the recovery

cannot be a basis for conviction whatsoever. This aspect has

rightly been considered by the learned Trial Court while acquitting

the accused-respondents. Furthermore, the F.S.L. report has not

at all been exhibited by the prosecution to prove whether the

lathi and the gandasi were blood-stained, and if blood was found,

whether it was of the same blood group as the deceased or of

human origin, etc. Thus, no conviction could have been recorded

based upon the alleged recoveries.

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (18 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

12. Consideration in Appeals Against Acquittal: The Hon'ble

Supreme Court, in the case of H.D. Sundara & Ors. v. State of

Karnataka, reported in (2023) 9 SCC 581, while considering the

principles to be kept in mind during the hearing of an appeal against

acquittal, summarized the legal position as under:

8. In this appeal, we are called upon to consider the legality and validity of the impugned judgment rendered by the High Court while deciding an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.'). The principles which govern the exercise of appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 of Cr.P.C. can be summarised as follows: -

8.1 The acquittal of the accused further strengthens the presumption of innocence;

8.2 The Appellate Court, while hearing an appeal against acquittal, is entitled to re-appreciate the oral and documentary evidence;

8.3 The Appellate Court, while deciding an appeal against acquittal, after re-appreciating the evidence, is required to consider whether the view taken by the Trial Court is a possible view which could have been taken on the basis of the evidence on record;

8.4 If the view taken is a possible view, the Appellate Court cannot overturn the order of acquittal on the ground that another view was also possible; and

8.5 The Appellate Court can interfere with the order of acquittal only if it comes to a finding that the only conclusion which can be recorded on the basis of the evidence on record was that the guilt of the accused was proved beyond a reasonable doubt and no other conclusion was possible."

13. Taking guidance from the above-mentioned judgment, it is

clear that the prosecution has failed to establish that the

judgment of acquittal suffers from any perversity or is based on a

misreading of the material available on record. Furthermore, this

[2025:RJ-JD:23190-DB] (19 of 19) [CRLA-7/2005]

is not a case where no other reasonable view is possible. In fact,

in the present case, the view pointing towards the guilt of the

accused is weak and improbable, whereas the alternative view

favouring the accused is much stronger and more plausible.

14. Thus, upon considering the entire record, we find that there

is no infirmity in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court

dated 03.09.2004. Accordingly, the order of acquittal is upheld,