Acquittal not interfered with where material witnesses were withheld and prosecution evidence contained contradictions.

An appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal where the prosecution evidence is incomplete and unreliable. The Court noted that the Station Officer who initiated the prosecution narrative and the Investigating Officer were not examined, and held that essential witnesses in the unfolding of the prosecution case should be produced unless adequately explained; otherwise, an adverse inference may arise. It also accepted the High Court's finding of material discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony, which meant the prosecution version did not inspire confidence beyond reasonable doubt. The acquittal was therefore a reasonably possible view and was not perverse or arbitrary.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court was liable to be interfered with in appeal, having regard to the non-examination of material witnesses and the inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested principally on the evidence of the witnesses examined at trial, but the Station Officer who had set the prosecution story in motion and the Investigating Officer were not examined. The Court held that witnesses essential to the unfolding of the prosecution narrative must be examined, and that adverse inference could be drawn where such evidence was withheld without adequate explanation. The High Court had also noticed material discrepancies and contradictions in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and found that the prosecution version did not inspire confidence beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The High Court's view that the accused were entitled to acquittal was reasonably possible and not shown to be perverse or arbitrary. The refusal to interfere with the acquittal was upheld.

---