Concurrent Acquittal Upheld | Two Reasonable Views Favour Accused : SC

The Supreme Court has dismissed a criminal appeal challenging a concurrent acquittal in a murder case, reaffirming that appellate courts must exercise extreme caution before interfering with orders of acquittal. The judgment underscores the principle that where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, the view favouring the accused must prevail, and that the benefit of doubt is a substantive safeguard flowing from the presumption of innocence.

Background & Facts

The Genesis of the Dispute

On 11.10.1998, the informant Raju Kumar, his elder brother Vinod Prasad (the deceased), the present petitioner Sanjay Kumar (son of the deceased), and other villagers were returning from Yogipur market after purchasing household articles. At about 4:00 p.m., near the paddy field of Jairam Singh at Soharpur Village, the Respondent No. 2, Nakul Prasad @ Nakul Yadav, along with other accused persons, allegedly intercepted and surrounded them. The Respondent No. 2, armed with a country-made rifle, is alleged to have fired at the deceased, the shot striking him on the right side of his chin/beard. The deceased succumbed to the firearm injuries at the spot.

Key Facts

• The informant lodged the FIR on 12.10.1998 at about 09:30 hours as Hilsa P.S. Case No. 373 of 1998, under Sections 302/34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
• The Respondent No. 2 was named as one of the accused in the FIR.
• The case of the Respondent No. 2 was split up and tried separately in Sessions Trial No. 596 of 2003.
• Cognizance was taken on 08.09.2003, and charges were framed against the Respondent No. 2 on 13.06.2012.
• The prosecution examined, among others, Sanjay Kumar (PW-1), Sudhanshu Kumar Vibhav (PW-2), Raj Kumar (PW-4), Dr. Awadesh Kumar Singh (PW-6), and Manmohan Prasad (PW-7), the Investigating Officer.
• Tunni Prasad (PW-3) and Vinni Bhagat @ Vindi Bhagat (PW-5) were declared hostile.
• The defence examined several witnesses in support of the plea of alibi.

Procedural History

• 24.12.2024: Learned Additional Sessions Judge -III, Hilsa, District Nalanda, acquitted the Respondent No. 2 in Sessions Trial No. 596 of 2003 / Reg. No. 8423 of 2014.
• 11.09.2025: High Court of Judicature at Patna dismissed the appeal preferred by the present petitioner and affirmed the judgment of acquittal.
• 21.07.2026: Present appeal dismissed by the Supreme Court.

The Parties' Positions

The appellant, being the son of the deceased and the informant, contended that the High Court committed a serious error in affirming the acquittal by mechanically invoking the limited scope of interference with an order of acquittal, without independently examining whether the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court was manifestly erroneous or perverse. The Respondent No. 2 supported the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court, submitting that the concurrent findings of acquittal did not suffer from perversity or manifest illegality.

Relief Sought

The appellant sought reversal of the concurrent acquittal and conviction of the Respondent No. 2 for offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act.

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether the concurrent acquittal recorded by the learned Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court suffered from such perversity, manifest illegality, or gross misappreciation of evidence as would warrant interference by the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Arguments Presented

For the Appellant

Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the High Court committed a serious error in affirming the acquittal by mechanically invoking the limited scope of interference with an order of acquittal, without independently examining whether the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court was manifestly erroneous or perverse. It was submitted that PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4 are eyewitnesses who consistently attributed the fatal shot to Respondent No. 2. The medical evidence, as deposed by PW-6, conclusively established a firearm entry wound on the right side of the chin with blackening, perfectly matching the ocular account regarding the manner, distance, and nature of assault by the Respondent No. 2. The High Court failed to give due weight to the post-mortem evidence and overlooked that related witnesses are not necessarily untruthful witnesses. The High Court also overlooked that while exercising appellate jurisdiction against a judgment of acquittal, interference is not barred where the findings are manifestly erroneous, unreasonable, or result in miscarriage of justice.

For the Respondent

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 2 supported the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. It was submitted that this Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, ought not to interfere with concurrent findings of acquittal unless the findings are manifestly perverse or result in gross miscarriage of justice. It was submitted that the Trial Court, upon a comprehensive examination of the documents, witness testimonies, and submissions, found that the prosecution case stood cumulatively discredited. The Trial Court noted that the medical evidence did not support the prosecution version, the story itself appeared improbable, the presence of interested eye-witnesses was doubtful, there was unexplained delay in lodging the FIR, the conduct of the informant and family members was unnatural, several witnesses were inimical, and the prosecution failed to secure corroboration from independent witnesses. These infirmities, coupled with serious lapses in investigation, led to the irresistible conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges against the Respondent No. 2 beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court's Analysis

The Supreme Court examined the settled principles governing interference with an order of acquittal. The Court reiterated that an accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty and that where two views are possible on the evidence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. The Court also reiterated that the benefit of doubt is not a technical rule but a substantive safeguard flowing from the presumption of innocence.

The Court observed that the High Court did not reject the evidence of related witnesses merely on the ground of relationship but found that their version, when tested against the medical evidence and the overall circumstances, was not free from doubt. The High Court treated the mismatch between the ocular version and the medical evidence as a relevant circumstance weakening the prosecution case. The Court noted that the FIR alleged four gunshot injuries to the deceased, whereas the post-mortem report showed only three entry wounds. The Court held that this discrepancy, though not fundamental, was a relevant circumstance creating reasonable doubt.

The Court also noted that the prosecution case ultimately rested upon PW-1, PW-2, and PW-4, who are related to the deceased. The independent witnesses, PW-3 and PW-5, did not support the prosecution case and were declared hostile. The remaining independent witnesses named in the chargesheet were not examined. The Court held that the non-examination of independent witnesses, when the prosecution itself considered them material enough to cite them in the chargesheet, was a circumstance creating doubt on the prosecution case.

The Court further noted that the Trial Court and the High Court found broader infirmities in the prosecution case, including delay and investigative lapses. The Court held that these circumstances, taken together, created a reasonable doubt on the prosecution case. The Court reiterated that criminal trials are not decided by isolating circumstances favourable to one side and that the Court must assess the cumulative effect of all infirmities.

The Court also addressed the plea of alibi raised by the Respondent No. 2. The Court held that even if the alibi is kept aside, the prosecution is still required to stand on its own legs. The weakness of the defence or falsehood of the plea of defence does not relieve the prosecution of its burden. Where the prosecution evidence itself creates reasonable doubt, the accused is entitled to acquittal, even if his defence plea is not found credible.

The Court concluded that the concurrent acquittal must be tested on the evidence relating to the occurrence dated 11.10.1998 and that the guilt or innocence of an accused in a criminal trial must be determined on the basis of evidence adduced in that trial. The Court held that the concurrent findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court are based on appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference.

"Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted."

"The Trial Court has the advantage of watching the demeanour of the witnesses who have given evidence, therefore, the appellate court should be slow to interfere with the decisions of the Trial Court. An acquittal by the Trial Court should not be interfered with unless it is totally perverse or wholly unsustainable."

The Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment dated 11.09.2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 224 of 2025, affirming the judgment of acquittal dated 24.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge -III, Hilsa, District Nalanda, in Sessions Trial No. 596 of 2003 / Reg. No. 8423 of 2014, is affirmed. The Respondent No. 2, Nakul Prasad @ Nakul Yadav, on being acquitted, stands discharged of his bail bonds, if any, subject to compliance with Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

What This Means For Similar Cases

Acquittals Are Not to Be Lightly Interfered With

• The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that concurrent acquittals by the Trial Court and the High Court are not to be lightly interfered with under Article 136 of the Constitution.
• The Court has reiterated that where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, the view favouring the accused must prevail.
• The benefit of doubt is a substantive safeguard flowing from the presumption of innocence and must be given due weight.

Cumulative Effect of Infirmities Matters

• Criminal trials are not decided by isolating circumstances favourable to one side. The Court must assess the cumulative effect of all infirmities in the prosecution case.
• Delays, investigative lapses, non-examination of material witnesses, and contradictions between ocular and medical evidence, when taken together, can create reasonable doubt and justify an acquittal.
• The prosecution cannot rely on isolated corroboration while ignoring broader inconsistencies in the prosecution story.

Related Witnesses Require Careful Scrutiny

• Evidence of related witnesses cannot be rejected merely on the ground of relationship. However, such evidence must be subjected to careful scrutiny.
• Where the evidence of related witnesses is attended by material infirmities, the court must proceed with caution and cannot convict the accused solely on the basis of such evidence.
• The presence of interested witnesses and the hostility of independent witnesses can significantly weaken the prosecution case.

Plea of Alibi and Extraneous Material

• A plea of alibi must be proved with a high degree of certainty to completely exclude the possibility of the accused being present at the place of occurrence.
• However, the weakness of the defence or falsehood of the plea of defence does not relieve the prosecution of its burden. The prosecution must stand on its own legs.
• Extraneous or subsequent material cannot be used to fill gaps in the prosecution case or to reverse a concurrent acquittal. The guilt or innocence of an accused must be determined on the basis of evidence adduced in the trial.