https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309834 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only for strong and compelling reasons, and a reasonable view taken by the trial court should not be displaced merely because another view is possible. The prosecution evidence here was marked by material contradictions, hostile witnesses, and unreliable recovery evidence, so the record did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence also failed to prove the common object or individual participation required for constructive liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court's reversal of acquittal was therefore held unjustified, the conviction was set aside, and the trial court's acquittal was restored. en-us Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Sep 2023 18:26:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309834 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only for strong and compelling reasons, and a reasonable view taken by the trial court should not be displaced merely because another view is possible. The prosecution evidence here was marked by material contradictions, hostile witnesses, and unreliable recovery evidence, so the record did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence also failed to prove the common object or individual participation required for constructive liability under Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court's reversal of acquittal was therefore held unjustified, the conviction was set aside, and the trial court's acquittal was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309834