Criminal appeal upheld; lower court erred by listing two conflicting versions of facts instead of choosing the more probable one.

The appellate court overturned the first-instance judgment regarding the defendant D.D. because the lower court improperly listed two contradictory versions of the accident instead of selecting the more probable one based on evidence. The prosecution argued that the lower court failed to resolve factual disputes, violating the principle of resolving doubts in favor of the accused. The court ruled that the first instance judge must now choose the most likely version of events to establish the material truth.