Appellate interference with acquittal is limited to perverse decisions; plausible evidence-based views must stand.

An appellate court will interfere with an acquittal only in exceptional cases where the judgment is perverse or compelling circumstances exist, because the presumption of innocence is strengthened after acquittal. Applying that standard, the SC found the High Court's view to be a plausible appreciation of the evidence, supported by material contradictions, inconsistencies in the FIR and investigation, doubts about the place and manner of occurrence, absence of reliable eye-witness support, and failure to explain injuries on the accused. The acquittal was therefore upheld and the prosecution challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court should interfere with the acquittal recorded by the High Court and restore the conviction under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Analysis: The Court reiterated that interference with an acquittal is warranted only in exceptional cases where compelling circumstances exist and the judgment under appeal is shown to be perverse. The appellate court must keep in view the strengthened presumption of innocence that follows an acquittal and should not substitute another possible view for the one adopted by the High Court merely because a different conclusion may also be possible. On the facts, the High Court had reappreciated the evidence and found material contradictions, inconsistencies in the FIR and investigation, deficiencies in the prosecution version regarding the place and manner of occurrence, absence of reliable eye-witness support, and failure to explain the injuries on the accused.

Conclusion: No ground for interference with the acquittal was made out, and the appeal was liable to be dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was left undisturbed, and the prosecution challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will interfere with an acquittal only when the decision is perverse or otherwise exceptional grounds exist; where the High Court's view is a plausible one supported by evaluation of the evidence, the acquittal must be upheld.

---