Facts
The respondent was tried for offences under S.302 r/w S.34 IPC and S.27 Arms Act for allegedly shooting the deceased along with other accused. The Trial Court acquitted him, holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court affirmed the acquittal, noting inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, hostility of independent witnesses, and reliance on related witnesses. The deceased's son appealed to the Supreme Court.
Issues Framed
Whether the concurrent acquittal suffered from perversity, manifest illegality, or gross misappreciation of evidence warranting interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. (Para 3)
Court's Reasoning
(a) Scope of Interference
The Court reiterated that an acquitted accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence. Interference with concurrent acquittals is justified only where the findings are manifestly perverse, wholly unsustainable, or result in a miscarriage of justice. Merely because another view is possible is not a ground for reversal. (Paras 26–33)
(b) Appreciation of Evidence
The Court held that although the evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely because of relationship, it requires careful scrutiny. Here, the prosecution case rested mainly on related witnesses, while two independent witnesses turned hostile and other independent witnesses were not examined. (Paras 34–37, 47–51)
(c) Ocular and Medical Evidence
The Court found that the High Court was justified in treating the mismatch between the FIR, eyewitness account and post-mortem report as creating reasonable doubt. While one injury corresponded with the allegation against the respondent, the prosecution version as a whole did not inspire confidence. (Paras 38–46)
(d) Cumulative Assessment
The Court held that delay in lodging the FIR, investigative lapses, hostility of independent witnesses, and inconsistencies in the prosecution case, when considered cumulatively, justified the acquittal. The weakness of the defence or plea of alibi could not cure deficiencies in the prosecution case. (Paras 52–69)
Held
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the concurrent acquittal, holding that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and that the findings of the courts below did not warrant interference under Article 136.
Ratio
Where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, the Supreme Court will not interfere with a concurrent acquittal under Article 136 unless the findings are perverse, manifestly illegal, or wholly unsustainable.
Relevant Para
Para 69
"In an appeal against acquittal, and more particularly in a case of concurrent acquittal, this Court would not substitute its own view merely because another view is possible. The findings recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court are based on appreciation of evidence and do not call for interference."
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 735
Decided on: 21 July 2026
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, J.