Private party challenge to acquittal maintainable under Article 136, and credible eyewitness evidence can sustain conviction.

Article 136 does not create a right of appeal, but a private party may seek special leave against an acquittal where a serious miscarriage of justice is alleged, so maintainability is not confined to the State. The Court also held that a conviction resting on credible eyewitness testimony cannot be overturned on speculative doubts about the FIR, ocular evidence, or medical evidence, especially where the trial court's reasons are supported by the record. The High Court's reversal was therefore unsustainable, and the trial court's conviction and sentence were restored under the Indian Penal Code.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal against acquittal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at the instance of an interested private party was maintainable. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's conviction on the basis of alleged infirmities in the FIR, ocular evidence, and medical evidence.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal against acquittal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India at the instance of an interested private party was maintainable.

Analysis: Article 136 confers a plenary and discretionary jurisdiction on the Court and does not create a right of appeal in any party, nor does it restrict invocation of that jurisdiction to the State alone. Where a serious miscarriage of justice is alleged, a private party may also seek special leave, and maintainability is not defeated merely because the prosecution appeal was not pursued by the State.

Conclusion: The challenge by the private appellant was maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's conviction on the basis of alleged infirmities in the FIR, ocular evidence, and medical evidence.

Analysis: The High Court proceeded on factual assumptions not supported by the record, including an erroneous view of the number of shots fired, the timing correction in the FIR, and an alleged inconsistency between medical witnesses that was sufficiently explained. Credible eyewitness testimony could not be displaced by conjecture or by speculative reliance on medical possibilities, and the absence of ballistic evidence did not, by itself, render direct evidence unreliable. The trial court had given adequate reasons for conviction, while the High Court's reversal lacked proper evidentiary foundation.

Conclusion: The High Court's acquittal was set aside and the trial court's conviction and sentence were restored.

Final Conclusion: The decision reinstated the trial court's findings, upheld the convictions under Sections 302 and 440 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and restored the sentences imposed on the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi: A private party may invoke Article 136 against an acquittal where miscarriage of justice is alleged, and a conviction based on credible eyewitness evidence cannot be displaced on speculative doubts or uncorroborated medical conjecture.

---