Unreasonable acquittal review: related eyewitness testimony and explained FIR delay cannot be discarded on conjecture.

An acquittal may be reversed where the appellate court's view is unreasonable, rests on conjecture, or ignores credible evidence. Related eyewitnesses cannot be rejected solely because of their relationship with the deceased if their testimony is otherwise trustworthy. Delay in lodging the FIR or transmitting the special report is not suspicious when explained by the surrounding circumstances. The Supreme Court found the High Court had discarded eyewitness evidence without adequate basis and had relied on speculative criticism of the timing and reporting of the , so the conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction by treating the alleged delay in lodging the FIR and sending the special report as suspicious, and by discarding the eyewitness evidence on grounds of relationship and minor discrepancies.

Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is warranted only for compelling and substantial reasons, but an appellate court may reappreciate the evidence where material evidence has been ignored or the judgment under challenge is clearly unreasonable. The mere fact that witnesses are related to the deceased does not render them unworthy of credit. The delay in lodging the FIR and in transmitting the special report was explained by the surrounding circumstances and, on the record, could not be treated as unexplained or suspicious. The High Court had proceeded on conjectures, including speculative criticism of the timing of the occurrence and the manner in which the informant reached the police station, and had also discarded the eyewitness account without adequate basis.

Conclusion: The High Court erred in setting aside the conviction. The acquittal was unsustainable, and the trial court's conviction and sentence were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal may be reversed where the appellate court finds that the lower court's view is unreasonable, based on conjecture, or ignores credible evidence, and related eyewitness testimony cannot be rejected merely on the ground of relationship if otherwise trustworthy.

---