Acquittal interference and related eyewitness testimony can sustain conviction when the trial view is perverse or unreasonable.

Interference with an acquittal is justified only when the trial court's view is perverse, highly unreasonable, or based on irrelevant or inadmissible considerations; applying that standard, the High Court's reversal of acquittal was upheld because the trial court had rejected the prosecution on speculative grounds. Related eyewitnesses are not to be discarded merely because of relationship with the deceased, absent evidence of enmity or false implication, and non-examination of independent witnesses is not fatal where the eyewitness account is otherwise credible. On those principles, the conviction was sustained and the challenge to the acquittal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order of acquittal on the ground that the trial court's view was perverse or unreasonable; (ii) Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses and the non-examination of independent witnesses justified rejection of the prosecution case.

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

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted where the trial court's view is perverse, highly unreasonable, or based on irrelevant or inadmissible considerations. The evidence must be such that no reasonable alternative view in favour of the accused is possible. The trial court's approach in discrediting the prosecution mainly on general and speculative grounds was found to be unsatisfactory.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal, and the interference was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the testimony of related eyewitnesses and the non-examination of independent witnesses justified rejection of the prosecution case.

Analysis: Mere relationship of witnesses with the deceased does not make them inimical or untrustworthy in the absence of evidence of enmity. Their evidence cannot be discarded solely because they are related, particularly when the accused are also related to them and there is no material showing false implication. Non-examination of independent witnesses is not by itself fatal where the eyewitness account is otherwise credible and there is no rule requiring corroboration in every case.

Conclusion: The eyewitnesses were accepted as reliable, and the absence of independent witnesses did not weaken the prosecution case.

Final Conclusion: The conviction recorded against the appellants was sustained and the challenge to the acquittal was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the acquittal is perverse or unreasonable, and credible related eyewitness testimony cannot be discarded merely for want of independent corroboration absent evidence of enmity or false implication.

---