State of Rajasthan v. Islam & Ors., (2011) 6 SCC 343, in which Supreme Court observed:
“16. The principle to be followed by the appellate court
considering an appeal against an order of acquittal is to
interfere only when there are compelling and substantial
reasons to do so. Thus, in such cases, this Court would
usually not interfere unless:
(i) The finding is vitiated by some glaring infirmity in the
appraisal of evidence. (State of U.P. v. Sahai, (1982) 1
SCC 352 at SCC paras 2022: AIR paras 1921.)
(ii) The finding is perverse. (State of M.P. v. Bacchudas,
(2007) 9 SCC 135 at SCC para 10 and State of Punjab v.
Parveen Kumar, (2005) 9 SCC 769 at SCC para 9.)
(iii) The order suffers from substantial errors of law and fact. (Rajesh Kumar v. Dharamvir, (1997) 4 SCC 496 at SCC para 5.)
(iv) The order is based on misconception of law or
erroneous appreciation of evidence. (State of U.P. v.
Abdul, (1997) 10 SCC 135; State of U.P. v. Premi, (2003) 9
SCC 12 at SCC para 15.)
(v) The High Court has adopted an erroneous approach
resulting in miscarriage of justice. (State of T.N. v.
Suresh, (1998) 2 SCC 372 at SCC paras 31 and 32;
State of M.P. v. Paltan Mallah, (2005) 3 SCC 169 at SCC
para 8.)
(vi) Acquittal is based on irrelevant grounds.
(Arunachalam v. P.S.R. Sadhanantham, (1979) 2 SCC 297
at SCC para 4.)
(vii) The High Court has completely misdirected itself in
reversing the order of conviction by the trial court. (Gauri
Shanker Sharma v. State of U.P., (1990) Supp. SCC 656)
(viii) The judgment is tainted with serious legal
infirmities. (State of Maharashtra v. Narsingrao
Gangaram Pimple, (1984) 1 SCC 446 at SCC para 45: AIR
para 45.)
In reversing an acquittal, this Court keeps in mind that
presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is fortified
by an order of acquittal and if the view of the High Court is
reasonable and founded on materials on record, this Court
should not interfere. However, if this Court is of the opinion
that the acquittal is not based on a reasonable view, then it
may review the entire material and there will be no limitation
on this Court’s jurisdiction under Article 136 to come to a just
decision quashing the acquittal. [See State (Delhi Admn.) v.
Laxman Kumar, (1985) 4 SCC 476 at SCC para 45 and
Dharma v. Nirmal Singh, (1996) 7 SCC 471 at SCC para 4.]”
