The appellate court's review of acquittal requires strong evidence of error in the trial court's decision, maintaining that acquittals reinforce presumption of innocence.

JUDGMENT :

Ravi Chirania, J.

1. The appellant-State filed an application for leave to appeal before this Hon’ble Court. By order dated 12.07.2012, leave was granted and accordingly, the present regular appeal was registered. In the instant appeal, the appellant-State, through the Public Prosecutor, has challenged the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities Cases), Bhilwara Mr. V.K. Arya, RHJS in Sessions Case No. 62/2010, by which all five accused persons were acquitted on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against all of them.

2. The present appeal has been filed by the State solely on two grounds numbered (iii) and (iv), as mentioned in the appeal.

3. The two grounds of appeal are quoted below for ready reference:

"iii) That eye witnesses Sonu, Pw-23 has clearly stated that deceased was beaten-up severely by the accused respondent and it was on account of these beatings the deceased passed away. No reasons have been given by the learned trial court for disbelieving this natural and trustworthy evidence. As no rebuttal has been offered from the defence side so as to disbelieve the version of this natural witness. The evidence of this witness has been corroborated from the evidence of PW-24 Rampali.

iv) That the learned trial court has also committed a serious error of law and facts in not considering that a motive was available with the accused respondents in as much as they were operating under superstitious that the deceased was playing some evil magic under a sort of third power and according to the accused respondent it was the conduct of deceased which led the destruction in their family and for superstitious they had beaten- up the deceased to death, thus the learned trial court wrongly held that there was no motive available with the accused respondents."

4. The above-mentioned grounds show that the State has filed the appeal on the ground that the statement of eyewitness Sonu PW-23, was not properly considered despite her statement being corroborated by the evidence of PW-24 Rampali also. The State further stated in ground (iv) that a motive was indeed available with the accused persons, but the learned Trial Court failed to consider the same and wrongly recorded that no motive was available with the accused-respondents.

5. As mentioned above, the present appeal is against the judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has laid down the principles to be followed while interfering with a judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.

6. In the case of Mallappa & Ors. vs. State of Karnataka (2024 INSC 104) decided on 12.02.2024, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, has held as under:

"36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:

(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive – inclusive of all evidence, oral or documentary;

(ii) Partial or selective appreciation of evidence may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

(iii) If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, m