In which case were the soldiers found not guilty for the actions that occurred in their presence?

In Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1975), the key focus is on the legal interpretation of a soldier's duty and the circumstances in which they can be held accountable for their actions. The case emphasizes that soldiers acting in the presence of a civilian victim, under certain conditions, may not be held liable for criminal acts if they believe their actions to be justifiable in the context of their duties. This notion is rooted in the understanding of proportionality and necessity in the use of force within a military context.

In this case, the court established that soldiers could potentially escape liability if they acted to prevent a greater harm while executing their duties, provided that their response was reasonable under the circumstances. The assessment of their state of mind and the immediate context in which they acted plays a crucial role in determining justifiability.

Thus, the finding of not guilty is linked to the legal principles surrounding the conduct of soldiers during operations, illustrating the complexities of imposing criminal liability on military personnel for actions taken while performing their official duties. This context is what makes the ruling in this case particularly significant in discussions of criminal liability and military conduct.