https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187584 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is not justified merely because another view of the evidence is possible; the appellate court must respect the trial court's advantage in assessing witnesses and the continuing presumption of innocence. Where the trial court's appreciation of evidence is plausible, especially on material doubts about the time, place and credibility of eyewitnesses, the benefit of reasonable doubt must remain with the accused. On that approach, the High Court's reversal of the acquittal was unsustainable and the conviction could not stand. en-us Tue, 01 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Oct 2016 18:43:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187584 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is not justified merely because another view of the evidence is possible; the appellate court must respect the trial court's advantage in assessing witnesses and the continuing presumption of innocence. Where the trial court's appreciation of evidence is plausible, especially on material doubts about the time, place and credibility of eyewitnesses, the benefit of reasonable doubt must remain with the accused. On that approach, the High Court's reversal of the acquittal was unsustainable and the conviction could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Feb 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=187584