https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295878 An appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence. The trial court had cogent reasons to doubt the prosecution case, including delay in forwarding the first information report, inconsistencies in the investigation record, doubt about the injured witness, and mismatch between the medical and ocular evidence. Because those defects were not satisfactorily explained and the High Court's contrary approach rested on conjecture, interference with the acquittal was held to be unjustified and the acquittal was affirmed. en-us Fri, 12 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Mar 2024 11:14:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295878 An appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse, unreasonable, or unsupported by the evidence. The trial court had cogent reasons to doubt the prosecution case, including delay in forwarding the first information report, inconsistencies in the investigation record, doubt about the injured witness, and mismatch between the medical and ocular evidence. Because those defects were not satisfactorily explained and the High Court's contrary approach rested on conjecture, interference with the acquittal was held to be unjustified and the acquittal was affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 12 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295878