Unreliable identification evidence and impeached eyewitness testimony could not justify reversal of acquittal in this appeal.

In an appeal against acquittal, reversal requires plainly unsustainable trial-court reasons and clear, convincing grounds for interference. The identification evidence was found unsafe because the witnesses had not known the accused, saw him only fleetingly while he was running away, and the test identification parade was conducted after unexplained delay. The remaining eyewitness, though previously acquainted with the accused, was unreliable because his name was absent from the first information report, the station diary suggested he had been treated as an accused and kept in custody, and the recording of his statement and alteration of the diary entry were suspicious. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the acquittal was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused on the basis of disputed identification evidence and the uncorroborated testimony of a witness whose conduct and police treatment rendered his evidence unreliable.

Analysis: The evidence of the two witnesses who identified the accused in the test identification parade was found unsafe, as they had not known the accused before, had seen him only fleetingly while he was running away, and the parade was held after an unexplained delay. The remaining eyewitness knew the accused earlier, but his evidence was clouded by serious infirmities: his name was absent from the first information report, the official station diary showed that he had been treated as an accused and kept in custody, and there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the recording of his statement and the alteration of the diary entry. In an appeal against acquittal, reversal is justified only where the trial court's reasons are plainly unsustainable and the appellate court records weighty and convincing grounds for interference. Those conditions were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained, the High Court's interference with the acquittal was unwarranted, and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was restored and the accused was ordered to be released.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, conviction cannot rest on unreliable identification evidence or on the sole testimony of a witness whose credibility is seriously impeached unless the appellate court demonstrates clear and compelling reasons for discarding the trial court's assessment.

---