Private defence and acquittal review: Supreme Court found the High Court's view possible and refused interference.

Interference with an acquittal is justified only when the view taken is manifestly perverse or not a possible view on the evidence. On the facts, the prosecution case was found unreliable, while the defence version that the respondent faced armed police officers, was assaulted, and sustained injuries was treated as probable. The Court held that the High Court's conclusion that the respondent had a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm, and was entitled to act with a firearm in private defence under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, was a possible view on the record. The acquittal was therefore not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court was so perverse or palpably erroneous as to justify interference in appeal, and whether the respondent was entitled to invoke the right of private defence under Section 100 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The findings of the trial court and the High Court showed that the prosecution case was not fully reliable, while the defence version that the respondent was confronted by armed police officers, was assaulted with dandas, and sustained injuries was accepted as probable. The High Court's view that the respondent had a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous harm if he did not act with a firearm was held to be a possible view on the evidence. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only where the view taken is not a possible one or is manifestly perverse. The record did not justify such a conclusion.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be interfered with, and the respondent's plea of private defence was accepted.

---