https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303462 In an appeal against acquittal, the Supreme Court reiterated that interference is justified only where the High Court's view is perverse or unsupported by evidence. The appellate court may reappreciate the record, but it must respect the double presumption of innocence after acquittal and adopt a possible view favouring the accused where two reasonable views exist. Here, the High Court had identified serious omissions and contradictions in the injured eye-witnesses' testimony, and the medical evidence also made the prosecution version physically improbable. That assessment was held to be a plausible view on the record, so the acquittal was not disturbed. en-us Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 25 Jul 2022 19:25:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303462 In an appeal against acquittal, the Supreme Court reiterated that interference is justified only where the High Court's view is perverse or unsupported by evidence. The appellate court may reappreciate the record, but it must respect the double presumption of innocence after acquittal and adopt a possible view favouring the accused where two reasonable views exist. Here, the High Court had identified serious omissions and contradictions in the injured eye-witnesses' testimony, and the medical evidence also made the prosecution version physically improbable. That assessment was held to be a plausible view on the record, so the acquittal was not disturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Feb 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303462