Facts

Two groups—the complainants (prosecution) and the accused—were on bitter hostile terms, leading both courts to be skeptical of prosecution witnesses without corroboration. [1000161200001] (!)
A confrontation and violent clash occurred on June 22, 1964, with each side alleging the other as aggressor. [1000161200001] (!)
Several on the prosecution side sustained non-fatal gunshot wounds, while three accused had lathi blow injuries. [1000161200001] (!) [1000161200002]
The trial court disbelieved the defense version (that accused were attacked) but found prosecution witnesses partisan and unreliable, acquitting all accused. [1000161200001] (!) [1000161200003]
An encounter took place, leading to a case and counter-case; courts held accused as aggressors based on number/nature of injuries and pellets hitting multiple persons. [1000161200002]
Prosecution claimed they disarmed and beat accused with lathis upon being attacked with guns; injuries on the three convicted accused fit this version. [1000161200002]
High Court acquitted most (20 out of 23) but convicted three appellants under S.307 r/w S.149 and S.147 IPC, using their injuries and one accused having a gun as corroboration. (!) [1000161200003]
The case involved 23 accused; only three appealed to Supreme Court after High Court reversal of trial court's total acquittal. (!)

Ratio

Appellate courts have power to re-evaluate evidence in appeals against acquittal but must exercise restraint, not upsetting it merely because another view is possible. [1000161200003]
Only accused with additional probative reinforcement (e.g., injuries corroborating participation) can be convicted when reversing acquittal. [1000161200003]
Injuries on accused can corroborate prosecution version of rioting and attempt to murder r/w S.149 IPC. [1000161200002][1000161200003]
Conviction under S.149 (or S.34) IPC via constructive liability is valid even if only a few accused (less than five here) are convicted out of a larger group. [1000161200005][judgement_subject]
Benefit of reasonable doubt applies, but mere possibilities, remote probabilities, or unreasonable doubts cannot justify acquittal if credible testimony exists; trial courts err by exalting bare possibilities into doubts. (!) (!) [1000161200004]
If trial court's acquittal verges on perversity, appellate court must correct it. (!)
Sentence can be reduced considering factors like some assailants escaping punishment, constructive liability only, case pendency, and jail time served. [1000161200006]