https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196252 The acquittal was not disturbed because the evidence showed material inconsistencies in the prosecution case, doubts over custody of the accused and weapon, and incomplete recovery of ammunition and bullets; no perversity in the High Court's appreciation of evidence was found, so the benefit of doubt was maintained. Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 was also struck down because it imposed a mandatory death sentence for death caused by use of prohibited arms or ammunition, even in accidental or unintentional cases, and left no room for individualized sentencing, mitigating circumstances, or judicial discretion. The provision was held ultra vires and void as arbitrary and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21. en-us Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 Nov 2017 12:17:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196252 The acquittal was not disturbed because the evidence showed material inconsistencies in the prosecution case, doubts over custody of the accused and weapon, and incomplete recovery of ammunition and bullets; no perversity in the High Court's appreciation of evidence was found, so the benefit of doubt was maintained. Section 27(3) of the Arms Act, 1959 was also struck down because it imposed a mandatory death sentence for death caused by use of prohibited arms or ammunition, even in accidental or unintentional cases, and left no room for individualized sentencing, mitigating circumstances, or judicial discretion. The provision was held ultra vires and void as arbitrary and inconsistent with Articles 14 and 21. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 01 Feb 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=196252