Private defence cannot protect an aggressor; reliable eyewitness evidence can justify restoring a murder conviction on appeal.

Appellate interference with acquittal is justified where the prosecution evidence is trustworthy and the acquittal rests on conjectures, immaterial omissions, or misappreciation of evidence. The SC noted that the eye-witness and injured witness testimony was broadly consistent with the FIR and medical evidence, so the High Court's rejection of that material was untenable. It also reiterated that a person who acts as the aggressor and initiates the attack cannot invoke the right of private defence to justify a deliberate killing. The Court further stated that conviction of the accused alone was legally permissible even though the co-accused had been acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court was sustainable on the evidence and whether the accused could claim self-defence.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence of the eye-witnesses, including injured witnesses, was found trustworthy and broadly consistent with the first information report and medical evidence. The High Court's rejection of that evidence rested on conjectures, an irregular courtroom experiment, and immaterial omissions, rather than on any real infirmity. The accused was treated as the aggressor, armed with fire-arms, and a person who initiates the attack cannot invoke the right of private defence to justify the deliberate killing of the victim. The Court also held that there was no legal impediment to convicting the accused alone even though the co-accused had been acquitted.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the conviction for murder and the connected offences was restored, and the plea of self-defence was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Appellate interference with acquittal was justified because the High Court had discarded reliable prosecution evidence on untenable grounds, and the accused's aggressive conduct negatived any plea of private defence.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction may be restored on appeal against acquittal where the prosecution evidence is trustworthy and the acquittal is founded on conjectures or misappreciation of evidence, and an aggressor cannot rely on the right of private defence to excuse a deliberate killing.

---