https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309852 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only when the acquittal is perverse or manifestly unsustainable, and the double presumption of innocence requires the view favourable to the accused where two reasonable conclusions are possible. Applying that standard, the Court noted material inconsistencies between the FIR, witness statements and trial testimony, and the informant did not consistently support the prosecution case; the acquittal was therefore sustained because guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The separate direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant was treated as unnecessary and severable from the acquittal, and it was set aside. en-us Fri, 07 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 08 Aug 2024 11:46:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309852 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only when the acquittal is perverse or manifestly unsustainable, and the double presumption of innocence requires the view favourable to the accused where two reasonable conclusions are possible. Applying that standard, the Court noted material inconsistencies between the FIR, witness statements and trial testimony, and the informant did not consistently support the prosecution case; the acquittal was therefore sustained because guilt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The separate direction to initiate perjury proceedings against the informant was treated as unnecessary and severable from the acquittal, and it was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 07 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309852