Reliable eye-witness evidence and prompt identification sustained conviction despite a perverse acquittal based on conjecture.

Reliable eye-witness testimony, corroborated by prompt lodging of the FIR, opportunity to identify the assailants, electric lighting near the scene, and identification in both the test identification parade and court, was treated as sufficient to sustain the conviction. The reasons for acquittal were found to rest on trivial discrepancies, speculation, and conjecture, and the trial judge's local inspection could not replace evidence. The acquittal was held perverse, and the convictions and sentences were upheld; the appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court was liable to be set aside and the convictions and sentences upheld on the basis of the eye-witness testimony and surrounding circumstances.

Analysis: The evidence of the two eye-witnesses was found reliable. Their presence was supported by the circumstances, including the prompt lodging of the FIR, the opportunity to identify the assailants at the hotel and at the place of occurrence, the electric lighting near the spot, and the identification of the accused in the test identification parade as well as in court. The reasons given for acquittal were held to rest on trivial discrepancies, speculation, and conjecture. The local inspection by the trial judge could not take the place of evidence, and the judge was held to have exceeded the proper limits of judicial inspection.

Conclusion: The acquittal was found to be perverse, and the convictions and sentences were upheld; the appeals were dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court may sustain a conviction where reliable eye-witness evidence is corroborated by prompt reporting and identification, and a finding of acquittal based on speculation, conjecture, or a judge's local inspection in place of evidence is perverse.

---