Acquittal appeal interference and unreliable delayed witness testimony led to convictions being set aside and acquittal restored

Interference with an acquittal in appeal is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or wholly unsustainable; where two reasonable views are possible, the presumption of innocence reinforced by acquittal must prevail. The Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal. It also found that delayed, inconsistent, and unnatural testimony from the alleged eyewitnesses and supporting witnesses was not reliable enough to sustain conviction, particularly when the trial court had given cogent reasons for rejecting it. The convictions were set aside, the appellant was acquitted, and the connected appeal of the investigating officer was also allowed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal recorded by the trial court in an appeal against acquittal; (ii) Whether the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses and supporting witnesses was reliable enough to sustain the conviction.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal recorded by the trial court in an appeal against acquittal.

Analysis: Interference in an acquittal appeal is permissible only when the trial court's view is perverse or wholly unsustainable on the evidence. The presumption of innocence stands reinforced by an acquittal, and where two views are reasonably possible the view favouring acquittal should ordinarily prevail. The High Court was required to apply that restraint while reappreciating the evidence.

Conclusion: The reversal of acquittal was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the testimony of the alleged eyewitnesses and supporting witnesses was reliable enough to sustain the conviction.

Analysis: The main witnesses came forward only after an unexplained delay of several years, their versions were inconsistent with earlier proceedings and earlier investigations, and their conduct was found to be unnatural when judged by normal human behaviour. The Court held that such delayed and inconsistent testimony, standing alone, could not safely sustain a conviction, especially where the trial court had recorded cogent reasons for disbelieving them.

Conclusion: The witnesses were not reliable enough to sustain the convictions.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were set aside and the appellant was acquitted; the connected appeal of the investigating officer was also allowed and his acquittal was ordered.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the trial court's view is perverse or unsustainable, and delayed, unnatural, and materially inconsistent witness testimony cannot by itself displace the reinforced presumption of innocence.

---