Insufficient evidence and reinforced presumption of innocence led the court to uphold acquittal for alleged hurt, restraint and confinement.

The prosecution failed to prove unlawful hurt, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, or extortion-related coercion because the medical evidence was inconsistent, the alleged injuries could also have resulted from a fall, and the complainant's account lacked corroboration. The court also held that the summons and interrogation by D.R.I. officers were part of an investigation and did not amount to illegal confinement. Applying the reinforced presumption of innocence in an appeal against acquittal, the court found no basis to disturb the trial court's view and upheld the acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under the Indian Penal Code was sustainable on the evidence, and whether the complainant proved unlawful hurt, wrongful restraint, wrongful confinement, and extortion-related coercion.

Analysis: The evidence did not establish that the complainant's injuries were caused by the accused. The medical certificates and testimony of the doctors were not consistent on the nature and extent of the injuries, and both doctors accepted that the injuries were also possible by fall. The only direct witness to the alleged assault was the complainant himself, but his version required corroboration in view of the surrounding circumstances. The evidence also did not show wrongful confinement or wrongful restraint, because the summons and interrogation by the D.R.I. officers were part of an investigation and did not amount to illegal confinement. In an appeal against acquittal, the accused carried the reinforced presumption of innocence, and no reason was found to disturb the trial court's view.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the charges under sections 323, 330, 341, 342 and 348 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and the acquittal was upheld.

---