Appeal against acquittal: when evidence supports two views, the one favouring the accused must prevail.

In an appeal against acquittal for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the Supreme Court held that interference is not warranted where the evidence reasonably admits two possible views and the one favourable to the accused must prevail. The Court found the claimed eyewitness evidence unsafe: one witness was examined after a substantial delay and lacked reliability, another had a doubtful presence because of inconsistencies and medical circumstances, and the third was not corroborated by objective facts and appeared hostile to the accused. The record therefore created doubt about the prosecution case, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court's order acquitting the accused for the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code called for interference in appeal against acquittal.

Analysis: The evidence of the claimed eyewitnesses was found unsafe to rely upon. The third witness was examined by police after a substantial delay and was not treated as reliable. The second witness's presence at the spot was doubtful in view of inconsistencies in her version and the medical circumstances. The first witness's account was also not corroborated by objective circumstances, and his testimony reflected animus against the accused. On a critical scrutiny of the record, the evidence created doubt about the prosecution case. In an appeal against acquittal, where the evidence reasonably permits two views, the view favourable to the accused is to be preferred.

Conclusion: Interference with the acquittal was not warranted and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, if the evidence admits of two reasonably possible views, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal and must prefer the view favourable to the accused.

---