Leave against acquittal refused where weak evidence and suspicion failed to prove murder beyond reasonable doubt.

Leave to appeal against acquittal was refused where the prosecution evidence, including ocular testimony and surrounding circumstances, contained material weaknesses and did not reasonably establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's careful assessment of the evidence was accepted, and reappraisal disclosed no basis to interfere with the acquittal. An alleged motive based on suspicion of an illicit relationship was held insufficient to prove murder. The Court reiterated that suspicion, even if strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt, so the acquittal was allowed to stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was rightly refused on the ground that the evidence did not establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested on ocular testimony and surrounding circumstances, but the evidence was found to contain material weaknesses. The trial court had carefully assessed the testimony and the surrounding facts and had concluded that the charges were not proved. On reappraisal, the Court found no reason to differ from that assessment. The alleged motive, namely suspicion about an illicit relationship, was held insufficient by itself to prove murder. The material, at best, created suspicion, but suspicion could not take the place of proof.

Conclusion: The refusal of leave to appeal against acquittal was upheld and the challenge to the acquittal failed, in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, leave should not be granted where the evidence does not reasonably support the charge, and suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof beyond reasonable doubt.

---