Interference with acquittals is limited; compelling reasons or clear unreasonableness must be shown to overturn findings, upholding the presumption of innocence.

Order

12/07/2025 Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378 (iii) & (i) of Cr.P.C. against the acquittal of the accused-respondents from offences under Sections 304-A , 337, 338 and 279 IPC vide judgment dated 18.05.1995 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) & Judicial Magistrate First Class, Abu Road, in Cr. Original Case No.831/1992.

Brief facts of the case are that complainant Badaram and his son Dhanraj were going to the hospital on his bicycle and when he reached at Check-Post at about 11.00 a.m., a roadways bus bearing registration NO.RNP-1119 driven by respondent rashly and negligently hit them. Due to which, Dhanraj succumbed to injuries. On the said complaint, FIR was registered against the accused-respondent and after usual investigation, the police filed challan against him. Thereafter, the trial court took cognizance against the accused-respondent and framed the charge for offence under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The accused-

respondent denied the charges and claimed trial.

During the course of trial, the prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and exhibited various documents. Thereafter, statement of accused-respondent was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. In defence, one witness was examined.

Upon conclusion of the trial, the learned trial court vide impugned judgment dated 18.05.1995 acquitted the accused- respondent from offence under Section 279 , 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC. Hence, this criminal appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant-State has submitted that there is ample evidence against the accused-respondent regarding commission of offence but the learned trial court did not consider the evidence and other aspects of the matter in its right perspective and acquitted the accused-respondents from offence under Section 279 , 337, 338 and 304-A IPC. The learned trial court has committed grave error in acquitting the accused- respondent. Thus, the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside and the accused-respondent ought to have been convicted and sentenced for aforesaid offence.

Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer made by the learned Public Prosecutor and submitted that the learned trial court has rightly acquitted the accused-respondent after due appreciation of the evidence. The judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial court is just and proper and does not warrant any interference from this Court.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence of the prosecution as well as defence and the judgment passed by the trial.

On perusal of the impugned judgment, it appears that the learned trial court while passing the impugned judgment has considered each and every aspect of the matter and also considered the evidence produced before it in its right perspective. There are major contradictions, omissions & improvements in the statements of the witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused-respondent beyond all reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has rightly acquitted the accused- respondent from offence under Sections 279 , 337, 338 and 304-A of IPC.

In the light of aforesaid discussion, the appellant-State has failed to show any error of law or on facts on the basis of which interference can be made by this Court in the judgment under challenge.

In the case of 'Mrinal Das & others v. The State of Tripura, :2011(9) SCC 479,' decided on September 5, 2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after looking into many earlier judgments, has laid down parameters, in which interference can be made in a judgment of acquittal, by observing as under:

“An order of acquittal is to be interfered with only when there are "compelling and substantial reasons",for doing so. If the order is "clearly unreasonable", it is a compelling reason for interference. When the trial Court has ignored the evidence or misread the material evidence or has ignored material documents like dying declaration/report