https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180086 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is patently erroneous, perverse, or demonstrably unsustainable; where two reasonable views are possible, the view favouring acquittal ordinarily prevails. Applying that standard, the High Court was found justified in reversing the acquittal because the trial court had assessed the evidence inconsistently and relied on immaterial contradictions, while the prosecution case was supported by eyewitnesses, injured witnesses, independent witnesses, medical evidence, and forensic material. Mere membership of a rival union did not, by itself, make eyewitnesses unreliable when their presence and testimony were otherwise consistent and corroborated. The conviction was therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 08 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 17 Dec 2025 11:03:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180086 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is patently erroneous, perverse, or demonstrably unsustainable; where two reasonable views are possible, the view favouring acquittal ordinarily prevails. Applying that standard, the High Court was found justified in reversing the acquittal because the trial court had assessed the evidence inconsistently and relied on immaterial contradictions, while the prosecution case was supported by eyewitnesses, injured witnesses, independent witnesses, medical evidence, and forensic material. Mere membership of a rival union did not, by itself, make eyewitnesses unreliable when their presence and testimony were otherwise consistent and corroborated. The conviction was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 May 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=180086