Appeal against acquittal
Appeal - Against acquittal - In an Appeal against acquittal the High Court ought not to lightly interfere with the decision of the Trial Court, which has recorded the evidence and observed the demeanour of witnesses. decisions of this Court in the cases of Padam Singh v. State of U.P., (2000) 1 SCC 621 and Sampat Babso Kale v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 4 SCC 739 , the ratio of these decisions are binding on us (distinguished on facts as Trial Court's judgment is largely inferential).
2020 SCeJ 484
If the view taken by two courts is a reasonably possible view, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with a concurrent order of acquittal
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal against order of acquittal - Though the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution is very wide, it has been a rule of practice and prudence not to interfere with concurrent finding of facts arrived at by two courts, by a reappreciation of evidence, to arrive at its own conclusion, unless there has been complete mis appreciation of evidence, or there is gross perversity in arriving at the findings, causing serious miscarriage of justice. If the view taken by two courts is a reasonably possible view, this Court would be reluctant to interfere with a concurrent order of acquittal. State of Goa vs. Sanjay Thakran & Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 755, referred
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136 - Appeal against order of acquittal .
"16. From the aforesaid decisions, it is apparent that while exercising the powers in appeal against the order of acquittal the court of appeal would not ordinarily interfere with the order of acquittal unless the approach of the lower court is vitiated by some manifest illegality and the conclusion arrived at would not be arrived at by any reasonable person and, therefore, the decision is to be characterised as perverse. Merely because two views are possible, the court of appeal would not take the view which would upset the judgment delivered by the court below. However, the appellate court has a power to review the evidence if it is of the view that the view arrived at by the court below is perverse and the court has committed a manifest error of law and ignored the material evidence on record. A duty is cast upon the appellate court, in such circumstances, to reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a just decision on the basis of material placed on record to find out whether any of the accused is connected with commission of the crime he is charged with." State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran & Ors., (2007) 3 SCC 755
High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal merely on the ground that two views are possible
High Court should not interfere with the order of acquittal merely on the ground that two views are possible. The interference should only be in such cases where appreciation of evidence by trial Court is capricious or its conclusions are without evidence or acquittal is not in accordance with law or the approach of trial Court has led to miscarriage of justice.
2019 SCeJ 3003 Munishamappa and others Vs. State of Karnatka 2019 (1) Scale 721
if two views are plausible, the view which goes in favour of acquittal has to be adopted.
It is a well settled principle of law that if two views are plausible, the view which goes in favour of acquittal has to be adopted. This legal principle has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Arulvelu v. State rep. by the Public Prosecutor. In the case of Bindeshwari Prasad Singh @ B.P. Singh v. State of Bihar (now Jharkhand), this Court has held that in the absence of any manifest illegality perversity or miscarriage of justice, the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court may not be interfered by the High Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The aforesaid view has further been reiterated by this Court in the following two cases viz.Rathinam @ Rathinam v. State of Tamil Nadu and Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta (Dr.) v. State of Maharashtra.”
2016 SCeJ 003 2016 SCC OnLine SC 834 Madathil Narayanan & Ors. V. State of Kerala