Appeal against acquittal requires deference to a possible trial view; unreliable evidence and alibi defeated conviction and conspiracy.

Interference with an acquittal is impermissible where the trial court has taken a possible view of the evidence, especially in light of the presumption of innocence strengthened by acquittal; the trial court's doubts about witness credibility and documentary inconsistencies were therefore respected and the acquittal restored. Criminal conspiracy was not proved because the evidence did not establish a prior meeting of minds or antecedent agreement, and mere presence at the scene did not suffice. The convictions for murder and allied offences were unsafe because of material inconsistencies, omissions and improvements in the eyewitness and police evidence, doubts over the dying declaration, and a plausible plea of alibi for two accused.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal in an appeal against acquittal; (ii) Whether the charge of criminal conspiracy was proved; (iii) Whether the conviction for murder and allied offences could stand on the evidence relied upon by the High Court, including the plea of alibi.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal in an appeal against acquittal.

Analysis: The applicable standard required the appellate court to reappreciate the evidence while giving due weight to the trial court's view, the presumption of innocence, and the reinforced presumption following acquittal. Interference was warranted only when the trial court's view was not a possible view. The trial court's assessment of the evidence, including doubts about witness credibility and documentary inconsistencies, was a plausible view on the record.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in substituting its own view for a possible view taken by the trial court.

Issue (ii): Whether the charge of criminal conspiracy was proved.

Analysis: The evidence of the witnesses examined to prove the alleged prior meeting and agreement did not support the prosecution case. Mere presence of the accused at the scene, even if armed and acting on a call to attack, did not by itself establish a prior meeting of minds or an antecedent agreement necessary for criminal conspiracy.

Conclusion: The charge of criminal conspiracy was not proved.

Issue (iii): Whether the conviction for murder and allied offences could stand on the evidence relied upon by the High Court, including the plea of alibi.

Analysis: The evidence of the related eyewitnesses and the police constables contained material inconsistencies, omissions, and improvements. The contemporaneous report did not name the accused, the dying declaration was rendered doubtful by the medical sequence, and the defence evidence raised a plausible plea of alibi for two accused. These infirmities materially weakened the prosecution case and made the conviction unsafe.

Conclusion: The conviction for murder and allied offences could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal recorded by the trial court was restored and the convictions and sentences imposed by the High Court were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is impermissible where the trial court has taken a possible view of the evidence; mere disagreement with that view does not justify reversal, especially where the prosecution evidence is materially inconsistent or unreliable.

---