Reversal of acquittal upheld where credible eyewitness evidence outweighed minor injuries on the accused and weak private-defence claims.

An appellate court may reverse an acquittal where the trial court's view is unreasonable, based on conjecture, or ignores relevant credible evidence. Non-explanation of injuries on the accused is not by itself fatal to the prosecution; it has limited significance where the injuries are minor and the eyewitness evidence is clear, cogent and trustworthy. A plea of private defence must be supported by material on record and cannot rest only on a Section 313 statement. Minor inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence do not discredit reliable eyewitness testimony unless the medical material wholly improbabilises it. On the stated facts, the acquittal was rightly reversed and the conviction was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused for murder, and whether the non-explanation of injuries on the accused, the plea of private defence, and the alleged inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence rendered the prosecution case unreliable.

Analysis: An appellate court may interfere with an acquittal where the trial court's view is unreasonable, based on surmises, or where relevant and convincing evidence has been ignored. Non-explanation of injuries on the accused is not an automatic ground to reject the prosecution case; its effect depends on the facts, and it is of little significance where the injuries are minor or superficial and the prosecution evidence is clear, cogent, and trustworthy. A plea of private defence must be established by material on record and cannot rest merely on a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Where the eye-witness account is reliable, minor discrepancies or delayed medical records do not discredit it, and credible oral evidence is not displaced unless medical evidence wholly improbabilises it. On the facts, the trial court's conclusions were held to be based on conjectures, the defence plea was not proved, and the evidence supported the accused's guilt.

Conclusion: The reversal of acquittal was upheld and the conviction was maintained; the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal may be reversed where the trial court's view is perverse or ignores credible evidence, and minor unexplained injuries on the accused do not by themselves discredit a prosecution case supported by clear and trustworthy evidence unless the defence version is probabilised or the medical evidence wholly contradicts the ocular account.

---