Supreme Court: Acquittal reversal requires trial court's view to be perverse or impossible

The core issue is whether the High Court was legally justified in overturning the trial court's acquittal without finding the trial court's view to be perverse or impossible.

Who it concerns: Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar; Respondent: State of Himachal Pradesh; Bench: Justice Atul S. Chandurkar.

What the court decided

• The Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without finding the Sessions Court's view to be perverse or impossible.
• The Court noted that the High Court failed to engage with the reasons assigned by the Sessions Court for the acquittal.
• The Court observed that the High Court's finding that the appellant abused and dragged the victim was not supported by evidence on record, as witnesses admitted in cross-examination they had not made such statements to police.
• The Court emphasized that the Sessions Court had the opportunity to observe the demeanor of witnesses, which the High Court did not account for.

Also in the document

• The judgment is an interim or partial analysis as the provided text cuts off before the final operative order (e.g., whether the appeal was allowed or dismissed) is explicitly stated, though the reasoning strongly favors the appellant.
• The Court specifically noted that no injuries were found on the victim's body and that prosecution witnesses' depositions were largely hearsay and general in nature.
• The Court highlighted that the High Court's judgment contained a brief discussion of only two paragraphs regarding the reversal of acquittal.