Acquittal interference limited to perverse findings; a reasonable trial court view cannot be displaced on appeal.

SC reiterated that appellate interference with an acquittal is permissible only where the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable. On the evidence, the trial court's reasons for acquittal were based on material inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, doubts about the alleged firing, and credibility concerns regarding the eyewitnesses, making its view a possible and reasonable one. The High Court therefore should not have substituted its own assessment and reversing the acquittal was unsustainable. The acquittal was required to be restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the appellants, and whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court suffered from perversity warranting appellate interference.

Analysis: The trial court had given detailed reasons for acquitting the accused, including discrepancies between ocular and medical evidence, doubts about the alleged firing from the jeep, inconsistencies in the prosecution witnesses' versions, hostility of two claimed eyewitnesses, and the doubtful presence and credibility of the remaining eyewitnesses. On reappraisal, the Court found that the trial court's view was a reasonable one. It reiterated the settled principle that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the acquittal is perverse. Since the trial court's assessment did not suffer from perversity, the High Court ought not to have substituted its own view for that of the trial court.

Conclusion: The High Court's conviction of the appellants was unsustainable, and the acquittal recorded by the trial court was required to be restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an acquittal is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable; if the view taken by the trial court is a possible and reasonable one, the appellate court must not disturb it.

---