https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309886 In an appeal against acquittal for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the Supreme Court held that interference is not warranted where the evidence reasonably admits two possible views and the one favourable to the accused must prevail. The Court found the claimed eyewitness evidence unsafe: one witness was examined after a substantial delay and lacked reliability, another had a doubtful presence because of inconsistencies and medical circumstances, and the third was not corroborated by objective facts and appeared hostile to the accused. The record therefore created doubt about the prosecution case, and the acquittal was left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Sep 2023 16:41:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309886 In an appeal against acquittal for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, the Supreme Court held that interference is not warranted where the evidence reasonably admits two possible views and the one favourable to the accused must prevail. The Court found the claimed eyewitness evidence unsafe: one witness was examined after a substantial delay and lacked reliability, another had a doubtful presence because of inconsistencies and medical circumstances, and the third was not corroborated by objective facts and appeared hostile to the accused. The record therefore created doubt about the prosecution case, and the acquittal was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Apr 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309886