State of Gujarat v. Kalusinh @ Harpalsinh
Background
During a dispute over ploughing of a piece of land that was subject to a pending civil suit, gunshots were fired in 1997, killing one woman and injuring two others. The trial court convicted two of the accused, including the respondent Kalusinh, under Section 302 IPC and other provisions, sentencing them to life imprisonment, while acquitting the other co-accused. On appeal, the Gujarat High Court upheld the conviction of the first accused but acquitted Kalusinh, holding that his identification as the shooter was doubtful since the incident occurred at night and there was confusion between the names "Kalusinh" and "Harpalsinh." The State of Gujarat appealed to the Supreme Court against this acquittal.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court noted contradictions in the prosecution's own evidence, the original complaint named two shooters while the complainant's courtroom testimony attributed all three shots to Kalusinh alone, and that the post-mortem report could not confirm which weapon caused the fatal wounds. It also noted that recovery of the weapons from the accused was not convincingly proved. Given these evidentiary gaps and the genuine doubt about Kalusinh's identity in the dark conditions of the incident, the Court held that the High Court's view acquitting him was a "plausible view" that was not perverse or patently erroneous, and that an order of acquittal should not be interfered with merely because another view was possible. The State's appeal was accordingly dismissed, confirming the High Court's acquittal of Kalusinh.
Lesson Learnt
When an accused has already been acquitted and the appellate evidence shows genuine contradictions and identification doubts, courts will not overturn the acquittal simply because a different conclusion was also possible: the benefit of reasonable doubt in criminal cases extends to upholding a plausible acquittal.