https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458705 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only if the trial court's view is perverse or unsupported by evidence; where two views are reasonably possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail. The SC found the prosecution evidence materially inconsistent, with contradictions and unnatural conduct among related and injured witnesses, and no independent corroboration of the alleged assault. The informant did not support the prosecution version. The alleged disclosure statements and recoveries were also not proved, as the panch witnesses turned hostile and denied the disclosures and recoveries. The conviction was therefore unsustainable, and the acquittal was restored on the benefit of doubt. en-us Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Nov 2024 12:18:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458705 In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only if the trial court's view is perverse or unsupported by evidence; where two views are reasonably possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail. The SC found the prosecution evidence materially inconsistent, with contradictions and unnatural conduct among related and injured witnesses, and no independent corroboration of the alleged assault. The informant did not support the prosecution version. The alleged disclosure statements and recoveries were also not proved, as the panch witnesses turned hostile and denied the disclosures and recoveries. The conviction was therefore unsustainable, and the acquittal was restored on the benefit of doubt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458705