Acquittal in murder case upheld where eyewitness and dying declaration evidence conflicted with medical findings and was not perverse.

An acquittal in a murder prosecution was upheld because the prosecution evidence was materially inconsistent with the medical opinion on the time and manner of occurrence, the nature of injuries, the deceased's ability to speak after the assault, and the number of shots fired. The eyewitness account and alleged oral dying declaration did not overcome those contradictions, and the High Court had given cogent reasons for doubting the prosecution case. The acquittal was therefore not shown to be perverse or unreasonable, and no interference was warranted in appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the High Court in a murder case called for interference in appeal despite the prosecution version, eyewitness account, and alleged dying declaration.

Analysis: The evidence of the eyewitnesses and the oral dying declaration was found to be in conflict with the medical opinion regarding the time of occurrence, the nature of injuries, the possibility of the deceased speaking after the assault, and the number of shots fired. The High Court had given cogent reasons for doubting the prosecution case, and the acquittal was not shown to be perverse or unreasonable.

Conclusion: No interference with the acquittal was warranted; the appeal failed.

---