https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287436 An appellate court reversing an acquittal must displace the trial court's reasonable view with cogent reasons; where the trial court's benefit-of-doubt finding is supported by evidence, interference is unwarranted. The evidence of motive was unproved, the alleged overt acts were contradicted by medical evidence, and identification of the third accused was unsafe without a test identification parade or independent corroboration. The record also failed to establish premeditation or a shared intent among the accused, so common intention under Section 34 could not be invoked. On these facts, the High Court's reversal of acquittal and conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 were not justified. en-us Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Apr 2020 16:55:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287436 An appellate court reversing an acquittal must displace the trial court's reasonable view with cogent reasons; where the trial court's benefit-of-doubt finding is supported by evidence, interference is unwarranted. The evidence of motive was unproved, the alleged overt acts were contradicted by medical evidence, and identification of the third accused was unsafe without a test identification parade or independent corroboration. The record also failed to establish premeditation or a shared intent among the accused, so common intention under Section 34 could not be invoked. On these facts, the High Court's reversal of acquittal and conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 were not justified. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 01 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287436