https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308695 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the trial court's appreciation of evidence is perverse, highly unreasonable, or based on irrelevant or inadmissible material; the Supreme Court upheld reversal because the trial court had ignored material evidence and drawn unsupported conclusions. The conviction was also sustained because the prosecution case was corroborated by prompt FIR, medical and investigative steps, injured-witness and eyewitness testimony, recoveries, admitted enmity, and the accused's conduct; minor inconsistencies did not undermine the core version, and falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was held inapplicable. The sentence and conviction were therefore affirmed. en-us Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 13 Jul 2023 17:59:37 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308695 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the trial court's appreciation of evidence is perverse, highly unreasonable, or based on irrelevant or inadmissible material; the Supreme Court upheld reversal because the trial court had ignored material evidence and drawn unsupported conclusions. The conviction was also sustained because the prosecution case was corroborated by prompt FIR, medical and investigative steps, injured-witness and eyewitness testimony, recoveries, admitted enmity, and the accused's conduct; minor inconsistencies did not undermine the core version, and falsus in uno falsus in omnibus was held inapplicable. The sentence and conviction were therefore affirmed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Mar 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308695