Appeal against acquittal in circumstantial evidence fails where the prosecution case is inconsistent and two reasonable views exist.

In an appeal against acquittal based on circumstantial evidence, the SC reiterated that interference is justified only if the prosecution evidence is reliable, the acquittal is perverse, or the lower court's view is unreasonable; otherwise the strengthened presumption of innocence prevails. The prosecution's case rested on last seen evidence, alleged conduct, and recoveries, but the circumstances were inconsistent, witness versions conflicted, and no conclusive link connected the accused to the recoveries. As two reasonable views remained possible, the view favourable to the accused was adopted and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court in a case resting on circumstantial evidence called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The prosecution case depended wholly on circumstances such as last seen, alleged conduct of the accused, recovery of ornaments, and recovery of the weapon. The circumstances were found to be inconsistent and untrustworthy, with discrepancies in the witnesses' versions and no conclusive linkage between the accused and the recoveries. In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must bear in mind the strengthened presumption of innocence, and interference is warranted only where the finding is unreasonable or the evidence compels a contrary conclusion. Where two reasonable views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not shown to be perverse or unsupported by reliable evidence, and interference was declined.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence, and the acquittal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court will not interfere unless the prosecution evidence clearly and reliably establishes guilt and the trial court's view is unreasonable; if two plausible views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must be adopted.

---