Appellate review of acquittal requires deference to a reasonable trial court view; interference lies only for perversity or illegality.

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate evidence but must respect the reinforced presumption of innocence. Interference is justified only if the trial court's view is perverse, manifestly illegal, or ignores material evidence; where two reasonable conclusions are possible, the acquittal should stand. Applying that standard, the trial court's reliance on material contradictions, lack of independent support, doubts in the prosecution version, and evidentiary gaps was found to be a reasonable view, and no basis existed to disturb the acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the acquittal recorded by the trial court in an appeal against acquittal.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence, but it must keep in view the reinforced presumption of innocence that follows an acquittal. Interference is not justified where the trial court's view is a reasonable one, and if two reasonable conclusions are possible on the evidence, the finding of acquittal should not be disturbed. Interference is called for only when the trial court's approach is perverse, vitiated by manifest illegality, or has ignored material evidence. On the record, the trial court had found material contradictions, absence of independent support, doubts about the prosecution version, and serious evidentiary lacunae, and no material was shown to dislodge those findings.

Conclusion: No interference with the acquittal was warranted, and the appeal failed.

---