Conviction nonetheless

Complainant, who was the only eyewitness of the robbery, appeared as a prosecution witness and categorically stated before the Trial Court that accused was not one of the persons who had snatched away the motorcar from him, and was completely innocent in the matter

Other prosecution witnesses, including witness of recovery made statements before the Trial Court to the effect that accused was innocent and that he had not committed any offence; that the stolen motorcar had not been recovered from physical possession of the accused, and that at the time of the alleged recovery accused was merely present in the street wherefrom the stolen motorcar had been recovered

All said statements made by different prosecution witnesses before the Trial Court had gone a long way in establishing that the prosecution had utterly and miserably failed to prove its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt

Supreme Court observed that Judge-in-Chamber of the High Court had clearly referred to the different aspects of the case but despite that the Judge-in-Chamber had concluded in favour of the prosecution, which conclusion was presumptive, speculative and conjectural at best; that in the circumstances of the present case no reasonable court could have arrived at such a conclusion and that such conclusion was possible only when the settled legal principles governing appreciation of evidence in criminal cases were applied inversely and the facts of the present case were appreciated and assessed with jaundiced perceptions and perverted sense of justice

Appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence of accused were set aside and he was acquitted of the charge.