Interference with acquittal limited to perverse findings; reliable eyewitness and corroborative evidence can sustain conviction despite minor inconsistencies.

Interference with an acquittal under Article 136 is limited to cases where the lower court's view is perverse, manifestly illegal, or grossly unjust; reliable evidence need not be reweighed unless material corroboration is ignored. The note states that prompt reporting, natural presence of eyewitnesses, corroborative medical and investigative material, and post-occurrence conduct can together prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt despite minor inconsistencies. On that reasoning, the acquittal was treated as unsustainable and the conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court called for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the prosecution evidence of the eyewitnesses and the surrounding circumstances established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue (i): Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court called for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The scope of interference with an acquittal under Article 136 is limited, but interference is justified where the acquittal is perverse, manifestly illegal, or grossly unjust. The Court reiterated that it would not ordinarily reweigh evidence, yet it must intervene where the High Court has discarded reliable evidence on fanciful or untenable grounds and has failed to separate truth from exaggeration or falsehood.

Conclusion: The acquittal was found to be unsustainable and interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution evidence of the eyewitnesses and the surrounding circumstances established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The prompt FIR, the natural presence of the eyewitnesses, the evidence of the accused and the deceased being seen together, the corroborative medical and investigative material, and the post-occurrence conduct of the accused were treated as strong circumstances supporting the prosecution case. The Court held that the High Court had erred in disbelieving the eyewitnesses on speculative reasons and in ignoring corroborative circumstances, including the timely report, the public setting, and the evidence of the accused's disappearance after the .

Conclusion: The prosecution case was held proved, and the conviction was restored.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the acquittal was set aside, and the trial court's conviction and sentence were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the lower court's appreciation of evidence is perverse or ignores material corroborative circumstances, and the Court may convict on reliable eyewitness and circumstantial evidence despite minor inconsistencies.

---