https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298616 In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence continues and the trial court's view, particularly where it has seen and heard the witnesses, deserves due weight. Interference is justified only for compelling reasons, not because a different view of the evidence is possible. Here, the prosecution evidence was found to contain material infirmities, including omission of the assailants' names in the immediate telegram, inconsistencies in the alleged manner of attack, and circumstances casting doubt on whether the eyewitnesses actually saw the occurrence. The trial court's conclusion that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt was treated as more sound, so the acquittal was restored and the convictions set aside. en-us Fri, 25 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Apr 2022 12:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298616 In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence continues and the trial court's view, particularly where it has seen and heard the witnesses, deserves due weight. Interference is justified only for compelling reasons, not because a different view of the evidence is possible. Here, the prosecution evidence was found to contain material infirmities, including omission of the assailants' names in the immediate telegram, inconsistencies in the alleged manner of attack, and circumstances casting doubt on whether the eyewitnesses actually saw the occurrence. The trial court's conclusion that guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt was treated as more sound, so the acquittal was restored and the convictions set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 25 May 1951 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298616