Summary
The State’s appeal against Kalusinh’s acquittal was dismissed. Conflicting accounts of who fired the shots, unconvincing weapon recovery, medical evidence that did not identify the weapon causing the fatal wounds, and doubtful identification during a dark-night incident supported the High Court’s benefit-of-doubt conclusion. That conclusion was a plausible view of the evidence and disclosed no perversity or substantial error warranting interference.
Issues
- Whether the High Court’s acquittal of accused 2 disclosed perversity or substantial error warranting interference.
Held
- The complainant’s initial account attributed firing to accused 1 and 2, whereas his testimony attributed three shots to accused 2. Weapon recovery was not convincingly proved, and the post-mortem evidence did not establish whether the fatal wounds came from a rifle or double-barrel gun. (¶ 8)
- The High Court’s identification doubt, including the dark conditions and omission of the alleged lighting from the initial police statement, supported a plausible view. Its acquittal was not patently erroneous or perverse. (¶ 9–10)
Result
State appeal dismissed. High Court acquittal of accused 2, Kalusinh alias Harpalsinh Bhamarsinh, left undisturbed.