Interference with acquittal requires perversity; reliable eyewitness evidence and no prejudice from Section 313 defect sustained the conviction.

Interference with an acquittal is permissible only when the trial court's view is perverse or contrary to the evidence, though the evidence may be reappraised to test the acquittal. Delay in lodging the FIR did not undermine the prosecution because the information was first recorded at the scene and the formal FIR was later taken at the police station, with the connected papers reaching the hospital promptly; absence of the FIR number on the inquest report did not show fabrication. The deceased's mother was accepted as a trustworthy eye-witness, corroborated by other witnesses and the investigating officer. The alleged defect in the Section 313 statement caused no prejudice. The conviction was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and sustaining the conviction for murder despite objections regarding delay in lodging the FIR, reliability of the eye-witness, and alleged defect in the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is warranted only where the trial court's view is perverse or against the evidence, though the evidence may be reappraised to test the correctness of the acquittal. The delay objection failed because the first information was recorded at the site and the formal FIR was lodged at the police station thereafter, with the surrounding papers reaching the hospital promptly; the absence of the FIR number on the inquest report did not establish fabrication. The eye-witness account of the deceased's mother was accepted as trustworthy, supported by another prosecution witness and the investigating officer, and the absence of blood on her clothes did not discredit her presence. The defect in the statement under Section 313 was held not to have caused prejudice, particularly as no timely objection had been taken and no prejudice was shown.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld and the challenge to the High Court's interference with the acquittal failed.

---