Appeals against acquittal require perversity or unsustainable evidence; strong suspicion cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt.

In an appeal against acquittal under Article 136, interference is justified only where the acquittal is shown to be perverse, improper, or otherwise unsustainable on the evidence. The Court held that reinforced presumption of innocence applied after acquittal, and alleged factual or legal errors were insufficient on their own to disturb the High Court's view. Although the surrounding circumstances created grave suspicion, the material did not compel a finding of homicidal death, other possibilities remained open, and the participation of the other respondents was not independently proved. The acquittal was therefore not disturbed because murder was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference with the High Court's acquittal was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the finding that the deceased had not been proved to have been murdered was perverse or improper.

Analysis: The appeal lay from an acquittal, so the presumption of innocence stood reinforced by the High Court's order. Interference in such a case was not justified merely to correct alleged errors of fact or law; it was appropriate only where the acquittal was shown to be perverse, improper, or the result of fraud. The circumstances relied on by the State, including the entombment of the body in the appellant's house and the surrounding conduct, created grave suspicion, but the available material did not compel the conclusion that the death was homicidal. The evidence left open other possibilities, including death from natural causes, and the participation of the other respondents was not established by any independent evidence.

Conclusion: The acquittal could not be disturbed under Article 136, as the High Court's view was not shown to be perverse and the charge of murder was not proved with the certainty required for reversal.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal under Article 136, interference is justified only when the acquittal is shown to be perverse or otherwise unsustainable on the evidence, and strong suspicion cannot replace proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

---