Circumstantial evidence in acquittal appeals: inconsistent last seen evidence and doubtful recovery defeated leave to appeal.

Leave to appeal against acquittal was refused because the prosecution evidence did not establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The alleged last seen testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, the witness conduct created doubt, and the claimed recovery of the mobile phone was contradicted by the public record. The Court also noted the absence of independent corroboration and failure to prove motive. Applying the settled restraint in appeals against acquittal, it held that no leave should be granted where the trial court had taken a plausible view and no perversity or illegality was shown; the acquittal therefore remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against acquittal was warranted on the basis of the prosecution evidence, particularly the last seen circumstance and the alleged recovery, in relation to the offences under Sections 302/120-B/380/411 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested substantially on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of the star witness on last seen circumstance. The evidence was found weak and insufficient to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances. The witness account was not free from inconsistencies, the conduct of the witness created doubt, and the alleged recovery of the mobile phone was rendered doubtful by contradiction with the public record. The Court also noted the absence of independent corroboration and the failure to prove motive. In an appeal against acquittal, leave is not to be granted where the trial court has taken a plausible view and no perversity or illegality is shown.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was not warranted and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---