Appeals against acquittal require perversity or unsustainable findings before interference, while unreliable prosecution evidence supports acquittal

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only when the acquittal is perverse or manifestly unsustainable, and the double presumption of innocence requires the view favourable to the accused where two reasonable conclusions are possible. Applying that standard, the Court noted material inconsistencies between the FIR, witness statements and trial testimony, and the informant did not consistently support the prosecution case; the acquittal was therefore sustained because guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The separate direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant was treated as unnecessary and severable from the acquittal, and it was set aside.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and acquitting the accused; (ii) Whether the direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant warranted interference.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court and acquitting the accused.

Analysis: An appellate court hearing an appeal against acquittal may reappreciate the evidence, but interference is warranted only where the acquittal is perverse or manifestly unsustainable. The Court applied the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, including the double presumption of innocence and the need to adopt the view favourable to the accused where two reasonable conclusions are possible. On the evidence, the prosecution version suffered from material inconsistencies between the FIR, witness statements and trial testimony, and the informant did not consistently support the prosecution case. The High Court's assessment that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt was therefore supported by the record.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in acquitting the accused, and that part of the judgment was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant warranted interference.

Analysis: Although the informant's evidence was found unreliable and inconsistent, the overall facts showed that the prosecution case had failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In those circumstances, the direction for perjury proceedings was considered unnecessary and was severable from the acquittal.

Conclusion: The direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant was set aside.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal of the accused was maintained, while the perjury direction was removed, resulting in partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only when the acquittal is perverse or otherwise unsustainable on the evidence, and where the prosecution case remains unproved beyond reasonable doubt, the acquittal must be sustained.

---