Eyewitness credibility and unreliable firearm recovery can fail to sustain conviction, especially against a reasonable acquittal view.

Eyewitness testimony was found unsafe where the witnesses were not local residents, their presence at the scene was unusual, and their accounts contained material contradictions and improbabilities about the assault and firing. The alleged recovery of the firearm was also rejected because prior search had not found it, the panch witness did not support the prosecution, and the recovery was not satisfactorily proved. In an appeal against acquittal, the Court reiterated that interference is justified only when the trial court's view is perverse or unsupported by record. As the trial court's assessment was reasonable, the reversal of acquittal was held unsustainable and the conviction was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses was reliable enough to sustain the conviction; (ii) whether the alleged recovery of the firearm at the instance of the appellant could be safely relied upon; (iii) whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal recorded by the trial court.

Issue (i): Whether the evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses was reliable enough to sustain the conviction.

Analysis: The witnesses were not permanent residents of the village and their presence at the scene was treated as unusual. Their version contained material improbabilities and contradictions as to the manner of assault and the position of the deceased at the time of firing. The account that the assailants emerged from concealment only to expose themselves to identification was also found unnatural. The trial court had already rejected their evidence on these grounds, and no sufficient reason was shown to accept it selectively against the appellant.

Conclusion: The evidence of the alleged eye-witnesses was held unsafe and was not sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Issue (ii): Whether the alleged recovery of the firearm at the instance of the appellant could be safely relied upon.

Analysis: The weapon had not been found in an earlier search of the premises, the panch witness did not support the prosecution version, and the alleged recovery was not satisfactorily proved. In those circumstances, the recovery lacked assurance and could not be treated as reliable corroboration against the appellant.

Conclusion: The alleged recovery of the firearm was not accepted in support of the prosecution case.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal recorded by the trial court.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, reversal is not warranted merely because another view is possible. Where the trial court has taken a plausible view on the evidence, interference is justified only if that view is perverse or unsupported by material on record. The trial court's assessment in the present case was a reasonable one, and the High Court was not justified in selectively accepting prosecution evidence to convict the appellant.

Conclusion: The reversal of acquittal by the High Court was held unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted of the charges.

---