Appeal against acquittal limits reversal where the trial court's view is plausible and evidence is materially inconsistent.

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or unsustainable; where two reasonable views are possible, a plausible acquittal should not be reversed. On the evidence here, the eye-witness account was inconsistent, the dying declarations did not name the accused, the identity and role of accompanying persons were unclear, and the alleged weapon recovery and ballistic link were not consistently proved, while the ocular version also conflicted with medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly reappreciated doubtful evidence and that the acquittal had to be restored. It also held that conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act could not stand because the alleged conduct concerned use of a firearm, not the prohibited acts covered by that provision.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's order of acquittal and convicting the appellant on the prosecution evidence; (ii) whether the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act could be sustained on the facts found.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's order of acquittal and convicting the appellant on the prosecution evidence.

Analysis: The settled rule governing appeal against acquittal is that where two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal unless the trial court's view is unreasonable, perverse, or unsustainable. On the evidence, the eye-witness version suffered from material inconsistencies, the dying declarations did not name the appellant, the identity and role of accompanying persons was not properly established, and the recovery and use of the alleged weapon of offence were not proved consistently. The ocular account also conflicted with the medical and ballistic evidence in material particulars. The trial court's view was therefore a plausible one, while the High Court's reversal rested on an impermissible reappreciation of doubtful evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal, and the appellant was entitled to restoration of the trial court's verdict.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act could be sustained on the facts found.

Analysis: The prosecution case was that the appellant used the rifle during the occurrence. Section 25 of the Arms Act punishes specified acts such as manufacturing, selling, transferring, converting, repairing, or possessing arms in contravention of the Act. On the prosecution version and the charges framed, the alleged grievance related to use of the firearm, not conduct falling within Section 25. The High Court therefore proceeded on an incorrect legal basis in sustaining conviction under that provision.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the order of acquittal was restored, and the appellant's conviction was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the trial court's view is perverse or unsustainable; a plausible acquittal cannot be displaced merely because another view is possible, especially where ocular evidence is materially inconsistent with medical and ballistic evidence.

---