Appeals against acquittal require proof that the trial court's view was impossible; unexplained reversal without reasons cannot stand.

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is permissible only when the trial court's view is not a possible view and the evidence leads to no conclusion other than guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court reversed acquittal without discussing the eyewitness evidence, without recording findings on the individual or collective role of the accused, and without explaining the applicability of Section 149 IPC. The trial court, by contrast, had carefully assessed the evidence, including delay in lodging the FIR and an unexplained injury to one accused, and its view remained a possible view on the record. The reversal of acquittal was therefore unsustainable, and the acquittal was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal without recording reasons that the trial court's view was not a possible view and that guilt was the only possible conclusion.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may re-appreciate the evidence, but it can interfere only when the trial court's view is not a possible view and the evidence admits of no conclusion other than guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The High Court did not discuss the eyewitness testimony, did not record findings on the individual or collective role of the accused, and did not explain the applicability of Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. On the other hand, the trial court had undertaken a detailed scrutiny of the evidence, noted the delay in lodging the FIR, and considered the unexplained injury to one of the accused. The trial court's view was therefore a possible view on the evidence.

Conclusion: The reversal of acquittal was unsustainable, and the accused were entitled to restoration of the acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the High Court was set aside and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is permissible only when the trial court's view is not a possible view and the evidence leads to no conclusion other than guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

---