Appeal against acquittal requires deference to the trial court unless its view is perverse; conviction set aside.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must respect the strengthened presumption of innocence and interfere only if the trial court's view is perverse or demonstrably unsustainable. The trial court's acquittal was supported by its appraisal of contradictions in the eyewitness account, the doubtful presence of a chance witness, unreliable recovery evidence, and the absence of a trustworthy dying declaration. The High Court failed to address those reasons adequately and relied on inference and selective acceptance of material without showing that the acquittal view was impossible or unreasonable. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal and convicting the accused on the basis of the evidence of the eyewitnesses and the alleged dying declaration.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court must keep in view the strengthened presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and interfere only when the trial court's view is perverse or demonstrably unsustainable. The trial court had given a detailed appraisal of the evidence, including the contradictions in the testimony of the principal witnesses, the doubtful presence of the so-called chance witness, the unreliable recovery evidence, and the absence of any trustworthy dying declaration. The High Court, however, did not adequately address the reasons recorded by the trial court and proceeded on inference and selective acceptance of material, without showing that the acquittal view was impossible or unreasonable.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reversing the acquittal; the conviction was unsustainable and the trial court's acquittal had to stand.

---