https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194005 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or unsustainable; where two reasonable views are possible, a plausible acquittal should not be reversed. On the evidence here, the eye-witness account was inconsistent, the dying declarations did not name the accused, the identity and role of accompanying persons were unclear, and the alleged weapon recovery and ballistic link were not consistently proved, while the ocular version also conflicted with medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly reappreciated doubtful evidence and that the acquittal had to be restored. It also held that conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act could not stand because the alleged conduct concerned use of a firearm, not the prohibited acts covered by that provision. en-us Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 25 Aug 2017 15:59:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194005 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or unsustainable; where two reasonable views are possible, a plausible acquittal should not be reversed. On the evidence here, the eye-witness account was inconsistent, the dying declarations did not name the accused, the identity and role of accompanying persons were unclear, and the alleged weapon recovery and ballistic link were not consistently proved, while the ocular version also conflicted with medical evidence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court wrongly reappreciated doubtful evidence and that the acquittal had to be restored. It also held that conviction under Section 25 of the Arms Act could not stand because the alleged conduct concerned use of a firearm, not the prohibited acts covered by that provision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 24 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=194005