Appeal against acquittal reversed on perverse appreciation of evidence; injured and eyewitness testimony sustained conviction.

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the trial court's appreciation of evidence is perverse, highly unreasonable, or based on irrelevant or inadmissible material; the Supreme Court upheld reversal because the trial court had ignored material evidence and drawn unsupported conclusions. The conviction was also sustained because the prosecution case was corroborated by prompt FIR, medical and investigative steps, injured-witness and eyewitness testimony, recoveries, admitted enmity, and the accused's conduct; minor inconsistencies did not undermine the core version, and falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was held inapplicable. The sentence and conviction were therefore affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the acquittal in an appeal against acquittal; (ii) whether the prosecution evidence, including the injured witness, the eyewitnesses, the FIR and the recoveries, was reliable enough to sustain conviction.

Issue (i): whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the acquittal in an appeal against acquittal

Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is ordinarily limited where two views are reasonably possible, but reversal is warranted where the trial court's view is perverse, highly unreasonable, or founded on irrelevant or inadmissible material. The trial court had discarded material evidence on untenable grounds, ignored relevant circumstances, and drew conclusions that were unsupported by the record. The High Court reappreciated the evidence and corrected those serious errors.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in setting aside the acquittal.

Issue (ii): whether the prosecution evidence, including the injured witness, the eyewitnesses, the FIR and the recoveries, was reliable enough to sustain conviction

Analysis: The occurrence was immediately followed by prompt reporting, medical examination, inquest and investigation. The FIR was not treated as vitiated merely because preliminary information was recorded earlier in the general diary or because some enquiries had begun. The injured witness could not be discarded without cogent reasons, and minor inconsistencies in the eyewitness accounts did not outweigh the core consistency of the prosecution version. The recovery of weapons and bloodstained clothes, the admitted enmity, the conduct of the accused, and the surrounding circumstances supported the prosecution case. The maxim falsus in uno falsus in omnibus had no application.

Conclusion: The prosecution case was proved sufficiently and the conviction was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal having been rightly reversed on a proper reappraisal of the evidence, the conviction and sentence were upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the trial court's appreciation of evidence is perverse or unreasonable, and credible injured and eyewitness testimony corroborated by surrounding circumstances may sustain conviction despite minor inconsistencies.

---