https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169264 An appeal against acquittal should be interfered with only where the trial court's view is unreasonable, perverse, or unsupported by evidence; applying that standard, the article states that the High Court should have respected the acquittal because the trial court's assessment was not shown to be unsafe. It also notes that the principal eyewitness account was unreliable due to material discrepancies and lack of adequate corroboration. The alleged extra-judicial confessions were treated as inadmissible because they were made before a person in authority after repeated interrogation, attracting section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On that reasoning, the convictions could not be sustained and the appellants were acquitted. en-us Mon, 14 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Apr 2015 16:35:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169264 An appeal against acquittal should be interfered with only where the trial court's view is unreasonable, perverse, or unsupported by evidence; applying that standard, the article states that the High Court should have respected the acquittal because the trial court's assessment was not shown to be unsafe. It also notes that the principal eyewitness account was unreliable due to material discrepancies and lack of adequate corroboration. The alleged extra-judicial confessions were treated as inadmissible because they were made before a person in authority after repeated interrogation, attracting section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On that reasoning, the convictions could not be sustained and the appellants were acquitted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 14 Mar 1977 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169264