https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303007 Leave to appeal against acquittal was refused because the prosecution evidence did not establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The alleged last seen testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, the witness conduct created doubt, and the claimed recovery of the mobile phone was contradicted by the public record. The Court also noted the absence of independent corroboration and failure to prove motive. Applying the settled restraint in appeals against acquittal, it held that no leave should be granted where the trial court had taken a plausible view and no perversity or illegality was shown; the acquittal therefore remained undisturbed. en-us Fri, 17 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Jun 2022 21:24:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303007 Leave to appeal against acquittal was refused because the prosecution evidence did not establish an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence. The alleged last seen testimony was inconsistent and unreliable, the witness conduct created doubt, and the claimed recovery of the mobile phone was contradicted by the public record. The Court also noted the absence of independent corroboration and failure to prove motive. Applying the settled restraint in appeals against acquittal, it held that no leave should be granted where the trial court had taken a plausible view and no perversity or illegality was shown; the acquittal therefore remained undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303007