The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed the stringent standard for overturning acquittals in criminal cases, holding that appellate courts must not substitute their own view for that of the trial court unless the evidence permits only one conclusion - guilt beyond reasonable doubt. This judgment reinforces the foundational principle that the presumption of innocence is strengthened, not weakened, by an acquittal.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The case arose from the fatal shooting of Kaleshwar Suman, the Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat Kirari, on 30 August 2008. The prosecution alleged that he was murdered in a targeted attack by five accused persons, including Gopal Singh, with whom he had been last seen prior to the incident. The prosecution contended that the killing was motivated by political rivalry and gambling disputes, and that the accused conspired to eliminate him.
Procedural History
- 30 August 2008: Deceased found dead at Apollo Hospital; zero FIR registered at Police Station Sarkanda.
- 30 August 2008: First Information Report (FIR) registered at Police Station Masturi against unknown persons.
- Investigation: Inquest, post-mortem, seizure of country-made pistol, cartridges, and motorcycle from accused persons.
- Trial Court (2011): Acquitted all accused of charges under Section 302/34 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
- 2012: Appellant filed acquittal appeal before the High Court under Section 378 CrPC.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought reversal of the acquittal, arguing that the trial court had ignored compelling circumstantial evidence and committed perversity by dismissing the prosecution’s case.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court could interfere with the trial court’s acquittal when two reasonable interpretations of the circumstantial evidence were possible, and whether the prosecution had established guilt beyond reasonable doubt without direct evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the trial court erred by disregarding the following material circumstances: (1) the ‘last seen together’ theory involving Gopal Singh; (2) prior enmity between the deceased and accused Gopal; (3) recovery of unlicensed firearms from the accused; and (4) the selective targeting of the deceased despite the presence of Gopal Singh. Reliance was placed on Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka to argue that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and unbroken.
For the Respondent/State
The State supported the appellant’s submissions, contending that the trial court’s acquittal was based on minor contradictions and omissions, and that the medical evidence, recovery of weapons, and motive collectively pointed to guilt. It argued that the trial court’s failure to appreciate the totality of evidence amounted to perversity.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a meticulous review of the trial court’s reasoning and the evidence on record. It emphasized that the prosecution’s case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence, and under settled law, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the chain must exclude every hypothesis except guilt.
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be fully established and the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to exclude every hypothesis except that of the guilt of the accused."
The Court noted that while the deceased was last seen with Gopal Singh, no evidence established the proximity of time between that sighting and the shooting. No dying declaration named any accused. The witness who saw the deceased alive after the shooting testified only that he said someone fired from behind - without identifying the assailant.
The forensic evidence was found wanting: not all seized weapons were examined, and no ballistic match conclusively linked the recovered pistol to the fatal injury. The Court held that the prosecution’s reliance on the recovery of firearms was insufficient to prove use in the commission of murder.
The Court also rejected the alleged motive of political rivalry and gambling disputes, noting that witnesses had made material improvements in their testimony, rendering the motive speculative.
Crucially, the Court reiterated the principles from Mallappa v. State of Karnataka and Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar: if two reasonable views are possible, the one favoring the accused must prevail. The trial court’s acquittal was not a result of misreading evidence or perversity - it was a plausible, evidence-based conclusion.
The Verdict
The appellant’s appeal was dismissed. The Court held that the trial court’s acquittal was legally sound, based on proper appreciation of evidence, and did not suffer from perversity or illegality. The presumption of innocence, reinforced by the acquittal, could not be disturbed absent proof that only guilt was possible.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Circumstantial Evidence Must Form an Unbroken Chain
- Practitioners must ensure every link in the chain of circumstantial evidence is independently proved and logically connected.
- Minor inconsistencies or gaps in testimony cannot be ignored if they leave room for an alternative explanation.
- The burden remains on the prosecution to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Appellate Courts Cannot Substitute Their View for the Trial Court’s
- An appellate court may reappreciate evidence but cannot reverse an acquittal merely because it would have reached a different conclusion.
- The standard is not whether guilt is possible, but whether it is the only possible conclusion.
- Courts must explicitly address and refute the trial court’s reasons for acquittal before overturning it.
Recovery of Weapons Alone Is Insufficient for Murder Conviction
- Seizure of unlicensed firearms may support charges under Section 25 Arms Act but does not prove use in homicide.
- Ballistic evidence must be conclusive; partial or inconclusive forensic reports cannot sustain murder charges.
- Prosecutors must secure comprehensive forensic testing and expert testimony to link weapons to the crime.
