Unreliable identification evidence prevents interference with acquittal where prior exposure of accused taints the witness's parade identification.

Identification evidence was rejected as unreliable where the sole eyewitness admitted seeing the accused in police lock-up before the test identification parade, and no other cogent evidence linked them to the offence under Sections 396 and 397 IPC. In those circumstances, the trial court's view that the prosecution had not proved its case was a reasonable and possible view, and appellate interference with the acquittal was unwarranted. The acquittal therefore stood because a conviction cannot rest on tainted identification evidence unsupported by other trustworthy proof.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused for offences under Sections 396 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code should be interfered with on the basis of the identification evidence.

Analysis: The sole eyewitness had identified only some accused in the test identification parade, but she admitted that the accused had been shown to her in the police lock-up before the parade. In such circumstances, the identification evidence could not be relied upon as trustworthy. No other cogent and clinching evidence connected the respondents with the occurrence. The view taken by the trial court was a reasonable and possible view on the evidence, and an appellate court does not interfere with an acquittal merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be disturbed and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment confirms that an acquittal will stand where the prosecution evidence is unreliable and the trial court's view is reasonably possible.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an acquittal is unwarranted when the trial court's view is a reasonable and possible view and the identification evidence is rendered unreliable by prior exposure of the accused to the witness.

---