Appellate interference in acquittal turns on unreasonable appreciation of evidence; related eyewitnesses' testimony remains credible if otherwise cogent.

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the appellate court finds the lower court's view unreasonable or based on ignoring material evidence. Delay in lodging the FIR was not unexplained on the proved facts, as the information was first given at the police chowk and the FIR reached the Magistrate within a time consistent with the distances involved. The accused also failed to explain the surrounding circumstances concerning the dead body and severed head. Testimony of close relatives could not be rejected merely because of relationship, and minor discrepancies did not undermine otherwise cogent eyewitness evidence. The acquittal was therefore unsustainable and the conviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction and acquitting the accused on the grounds of delay in lodging the FIR, alleged improbability of the eyewitnesses, and their relationship with the deceased.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may re-appreciate the evidence, but interference is warranted where the lower court's view is unreasonable or where material evidence has been ignored. The delay in lodging the FIR was not unexplained on the proved facts, as the information was first given at the police chowk and the FIR was thereafter registered and sent to the Magistrate within a time frame consistent with the distances involved. The surrounding circumstances, including the place where the dead body and severed head were found, were not satisfactorily explained by the accused. The testimony of close relatives is not to be rejected solely on the ground of relationship, and minor discrepancies do not discredit otherwise cogent eyewitness evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court's acquittal was held to be unsustainable, and the conviction recorded by the Trial Court was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal may be set aside where the appellate court finds that the trial evidence was discarded on an erroneous or presumptive approach, and the testimony of related witnesses cannot be rejected merely because of their relationship if it is otherwise credible.

---