Interference with acquittal requires compelling reasons; material inconsistencies kept the presumption of innocence intact and convictions were set aside.

In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence continues and the trial court's view, particularly where it has seen and heard the witnesses, deserves due weight. Interference is justified only for compelling reasons, not because a different view of the evidence is possible. Here, the prosecution evidence was found to contain material infirmities, including omission of the assailants' names in the immediate telegram, inconsistencies in the alleged manner of attack, and circumstances casting doubt on whether the eyewitnesses actually saw the occurrence. The trial court's conclusion that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt was treated as more sound, so the acquittal was restored and the convictions set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of acquittal passed by the Sessions Judge should be set aside on appeal and the accused convicted on the basis of the prosecution evidence.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence remains with the accused, and due weight must be given to the trial Judge's view, especially where he has seen and heard the witnesses. Interference is justified only for compelling reasons. The prosecution evidence was found to suffer from material infirmities, including the omission of the assailants' names in the immediate telegram, inconsistencies in the alleged manner of attack, and circumstances suggesting that the eyewitnesses may not have actually witnessed the occurrence. The trial Judge's assessment that the case was not proved beyond reasonable doubt was considered more sound than the High Court's reappraisal.

Conclusion: The acquittal was restored and the convictions recorded by the High Court were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an order of acquittal is warranted only when there are compelling reasons showing that the trial court's view is plainly untenable; a mere different possible view of the evidence is not enough.

---