The appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal order passed by the trial court merely because two views are possible in a given case.
“38. It is a well-established principle of law, consistently re-iterated and followed by this Court is that while dealing with a judgment of acquittal, an appellate court must consider the entire evidence on record, so as to arrive at a finding as to whether the views of the trial Court were perverse or otherwise unsustainable. Even though the appellate court is entitled to consider, whether in arriving at a finding of fact, the trial Court had placed the burden of proof incorrectly or failed to take into consideration any admissible evidence
and/or had taken into consideration evidence brought on record contrary to law; the appellate court should not ordinarily set aside a judgment of acquittal in a case where two views are
possible, though the view of the appellate court may be the more probable one. The trial court which has the benefit of watching the demeanor of the witnesses is the best judge of the
credibility of the witnesses.
39. Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. The nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity has to be taken into consideration. The appellate court should bear in mind the presumption of innocence of the accused, and further, that the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption of his innocence. Interference with the decision of the Trial Court in a casual or cavalier manner where the other view is possible
should be avoided, unless there are good reasons for such interference.”
Supreme Court of India
Sunil Kumar Sambu Dayal Gupta & Anr. vs State of Maharashtra (2010) 13 SCC 657
“30. It is now beyond dispute that interference in such an appeal should be made sparingly in a situation where the findings of the High Court are perverse and not possible on the evidence and if two views are possible the one leading to
acquittal should not be disturbed. The presumption of innocence which is always raised in favour of an accused is further
strengthened by an acquittal and bolsters the claim of the accused. The aforesaid time-honoured principles have been
recently set out in the judgment of this Court in Arulvelu and Anr. v. State....”
Supreme Court of India
Rathinam @ Rathinam vs State of Tamil Nadu & Anr. (2011) 11 SCC 140