Related witness testimony and appellate reversal of acquittal upheld where evidence was trustworthy and corroborated.

Related-witness testimony can sustain a conviction when it is otherwise trustworthy, consistent and corroborated by medical evidence; relationship with the deceased does not by itself render such evidence unsafe. Here, the ocular account was supported by medical evidence of a gunshot injury, and the absence of strong motive did not displace the direct evidence. In an appeal against acquittal, reversal is permissible where the trial court's view is unreasonable or perverse; the High Court's reappreciation of evidence was justified because the acquittal view was not a reasonable one. The convictions were upheld and the appeals were rejected on merits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the testimony of related witnesses could be relied upon to sustain the conviction. (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal on the evidence on record.

Issue (i): Whether the testimony of related witnesses could be relied upon to sustain the conviction.

Analysis: The evidence of close relatives is not to be discarded merely because of relationship with the deceased if it is otherwise trustworthy and withstands cross-examination. The ocular version of the eye-witnesses was consistent and was also supported by the medical evidence showing a gunshot injury on the neck of the deceased. The absence or diminished significance of motive did not weaken direct and reliable evidence of the occurrence.

Conclusion: The testimony of the related witnesses was reliable and could be acted upon.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal on the evidence on record.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence where the trial court's view is unreasonable or perverse. The High Court found the trial court's appreciation of evidence to be erroneous and perverse, and its conclusion was supported by the consistent ocular account and corroborative medical evidence. The principle that two possible views should ordinarily favour the accused did not apply where the acquittal view was not a reasonable one.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were upheld and the appeals were rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: Related witness testimony can sustain a conviction if it is trustworthy and corroborated, and an acquittal may be reversed in appeal where the trial court's view is unreasonable or perverse.

---