As per the case facts, the High Court reversed a trial court's acquittal and convicted the appellant. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court. There were discrepancies in witness ... statements regarding the mode of travel for recovery under Section 27 of the Act and contradictions regarding the place of arrest and disclosure statement. The Ballistic Expert's report was inconclusive regarding the firearm belonging to the appellant being used in the offense. The question arose whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal, given the discrepancies in evidence and the inconclusive nature of the scientific report. Finally, the Supreme Court answered that the trial court had threadbare considered all aspects, and the law presumes double presumption in favor of the accused after due adjudication by the trial court. The Supreme Court believed that the High Court should have been slower in reversing an acquittal order. Based on this analysis, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's conviction order, restoring the acquittal by the trial court, and allowed the appeals.