Appeal against acquittal requires perversity, and circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain excluding innocence.

Interference with an acquittal is unwarranted where the trial court's view is a plausible one based on proper appreciation of evidence and no relevant material was ignored or misread; on that basis, leave to appeal was not justified. The prosecution case also failed because the two eyewitnesses accompanying the deceased could not identify the accused, the alleged eyewitness was treated as unreliable due to delayed disclosure and the manner of his affidavit evidence, and the medical and ballistic material did not complete a chain pointing only to the accused. Accordingly, the evidence did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the acquittal remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether leave to appeal against acquittal ought to be granted on the facts proved; (ii) Whether the prosecution evidence, taken as a whole, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Issue (i): Whether leave to appeal against acquittal ought to be granted on the facts proved.

Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is not warranted merely because another view is possible. Where the trial court's view is a plausible one based on proper appreciation of evidence and there is no showing that relevant material was ignored or misread, an appellate court should not disturb the acquittal.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was not justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution evidence, taken as a whole, established guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The two eyewitnesses who accompanied the deceased could not identify the accused, and the claimed eyewitness was found unreliable for want of prompt disclosure and for the manner in which his affidavit evidence emerged. The medical evidence indicated death from a .12 bore weapon, while the cartridges linked to service rifles did not complete the chain against the accused. The circumstances therefore did not form a complete chain pointing only to the accused, and the benefit of doubt was available to them.

Conclusion: Guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal stood undisturbed, and no interference with the High Court's refusal to grant leave was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is unwarranted unless the trial court's view is perverse or ignores material evidence, and a conviction on circumstantial evidence can follow only when the circumstances form a complete chain excluding every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

---