2026 Supreme(All) 704

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
SIDDHARTHA VARMA, JAI KRISHNA UPADHYAY, JJ.
Ram Kumar - Appellant 
Versus 
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
CRIMINAL APPEAL U/S 413 BNSS No. - 158 of 2026
Decided On : 21-04-2026

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court only interferes if the trial court's finding is perverse, palpably wrong, or unsustainable. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt; if evidence is contradictory and two views are possible, the acquittal must be upheld.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure - Appeal against acquittal - Appellate court scope - The scope of an appellate court to interfere with an order of acquittal is extremely limited - An appellate court should not substitute its own view for that of the trial court unless the latter's approach is found to be palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or perversely based on the evidence - The presumption of innocence is further reinforced by an order of acquittal - Interference is warranted only when no person properly instructed in law could have reached the conclusion of not guilty based on the record. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20)

(B) Evidence - Witness testimony - Credibility - When prosecution witnesses provide conflicting accounts regarding the date, time, and methodology of the alleged crime, and these accounts contradict contemporaneous written reports, it severely compromises the evidentiary value of the testimonies - Material discrepancies between oral statements and documented evidence create a reasonable doubt that requires the benefit to be extended to the accused. (Paras 24, 25)

(C) Standard of Proof - Criminal jurisprudence - The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt - Suspicion, regardless of its strength, cannot replace substantive proof required for conviction - Where two views of evidence are possible, the view favouring the innocence of the accused must be preferred. (Paras 20, 21, 23)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was preferred against an acquittal, where the prosecution had initially alleged serious sexual offences and abduction. During trial, the testimonies regarding the timeline of the events and the nature of the alleged assault contained significant discrepancies. The trial court observed that the documented initial reports conflicted with the verbal evidence provided in court, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to establish its case with the requisite degree of certainty.

Findings of Court:
The appellate court found that the trial court conducted a thorough analysis of the evidence on record and applied a correct legal standard. It concluded that the inconsistencies in the witnesses' testimonies and the divergence from documented medical and investigative records were sufficient to sustain the acquittal, finding no perversity in the trial court's reasoning.

Issues: Whether the trial court’s acquittal order was based on a flawed appreciation of evidence and whether the appellate court was justified in interfering with the finding of not guilty in the absence of manifest error or perversity.

Ratio Decidendi: The reversal of an acquittal order is not permissible merely because another view could be taken; it requires a finding that the judgment of the trial court is unsustainable and vitiated by perversity. In the presence of significant and unreconciled contradictions in the prosecution's evidence, the presumption of innocence holds, and the order of acquittal must remain undisturbed.

Result: Appeal dismissed.