https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287431 SC reiterated that appellate interference with an acquittal is permissible only where the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable. On the evidence, the trial court's reasons for acquittal were based on material inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, doubts about the alleged firing, and credibility concerns regarding the eyewitnesses, making its view a possible and reasonable one. The High Court therefore should not have substituted its own assessment and reversing the acquittal was unsustainable. The acquittal was required to be restored. en-us Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2022 18:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287431 SC reiterated that appellate interference with an acquittal is permissible only where the trial court's view is perverse or unreasonable. On the evidence, the trial court's reasons for acquittal were based on material inconsistencies between ocular and medical evidence, doubts about the alleged firing, and credibility concerns regarding the eyewitnesses, making its view a possible and reasonable one. The High Court therefore should not have substituted its own assessment and reversing the acquittal was unsustainable. The acquittal was required to be restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 08 Jan 2003 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287431