Perverse acquittal review permits interference; minor ocular-medical inconsistencies will not defeat a credible prosecution case.

In an appeal against acquittal, the High Court may interfere where the trial court's view is perverse or against the weight of evidence, and may reappraise the record on that basis. Minor inconsistencies, discrepancies in witness statements, or limited mismatch between ocular and medical evidence do not by themselves discredit a prosecution case unless they strike at its core. Where the eyewitness account is natural and credible and the medical evidence is broadly consistent with the alleged weapons and manner of assault, the prosecution version can be accepted despite some variations. The conviction under challenge was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court was justified in interfering with an order of acquittal on the ground that the trial court's view was perverse; (ii) whether alleged inconsistencies between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, and discrepancies in the witnesses' statements, discredited the prosecution case.

Issue (i): whether the High Court was justified in interfering with an order of acquittal on the ground that the trial court's view was perverse.

Analysis: Interference in an appeal against acquittal is ordinarily limited, but the High Court may reappraise the evidence where the trial court's conclusion is perverse, that is, against the weight of evidence. On the material before it, the High Court found the trial court's appreciation of the eyewitness testimony and surrounding circumstances to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in interfering with the acquittal and in reversing the finding against the appellants.

Issue (ii): whether alleged inconsistencies between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, and discrepancies in the witnesses' statements, discredited the prosecution case.

Analysis: The eyewitness account was found to be natural and credible, and the medical injuries were held to be broadly consistent with the weapons and manner of attack described. The existence of some unexplained injuries and certain variations in detail, especially after a substantial lapse of time, was held not to destroy the core prosecution version, as the discrepancies did not go to the root of the matter.

Conclusion: The medical evidence did not contradict the ocular evidence, and the alleged discrepancies did not warrant rejection of the prosecution case.

Final Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the High Court was sustained and the challenge to it failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is permissible where the acquittal is perverse, and minor discrepancies or limited mismatch between medical and ocular evidence do not justify rejection of a credible prosecution case unless they strike at its core.

---