Acquittal under Article 136 not disturbed absent glaring infirmity in evidence appreciation and eyewitness testimony

Interference with a High Court acquittal under Article 136 is justified only if the appreciation of evidence is shown to suffer from a glaring infirmity or perversity. Where the conviction depended mainly on a single eyewitness, the High Court found that testimony unreliable because of the absence of proved motive, inconsistencies between the FIR and in-court evidence, and circumstances indicating possible false implication of several accused. On that record, the Supreme Court held that a mere possibility of another view was insufficient to disturb the acquittal, and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference with the High Court's acquittal was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the eyewitness evidence had been wrongly appreciated.

Analysis: The conviction rested essentially on the testimony of one eyewitness, and the High Court found that evidence unreliable for several reasons, including absence of proved motive, inconsistencies between the first information report and the testimony in court, and circumstances suggesting possible false implication of several accused. In an appeal under Article 136, interference with an acquittal is justified only where the appreciation of evidence is vitiated by a glaring infirmity. A mere possibility of another view on the record is not enough to disturb the acquittal.

Conclusion: No such infirmity was shown in the High Court's assessment, and interference was not warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, an acquittal will not be disturbed unless the appreciation of evidence by the High Court is shown to suffer from a glaring infirmity or perversity.

---