An acquittal cannot be reversed merely by substituting another plausible view of the evidence.

The complainant alleged that Hemant and his uncle assaulted her, outraged her modesty and attempted to rape her.

After the police filed a negative final report, the complainant’s protest petition led the trial court to take cognizance of offences under Sections 341 and 323 IPC.

The trial court acquitted Hemant, but, on the complainant’s appeal, the Sessions Court set aside the acquittal, found him guilty of those offences and remanded the matter for sentencing.

Hemant challenged that order in revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC.

Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the trial court’s acquittal and recording a finding of guilt against Hemant

Whether the appellate court’s reversal, followed by remand for sentencing, warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction

Sections 397 and 401 CrPC provide the basis for the High Court’s revisional jurisdiction; the alleged offences were under Sections 341 and 323 IPC.

An appellate court may reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but should not reverse an acquittal merely because another view is possible where the trial court’s view is reasonable and plausible; the acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, which must be displaced by cogent reasons grounded in the evidence.

Defective investigation is not substantive evidence of guilt and does not relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.

The quality of evidence, rather than the number of witnesses, is determinative; corroboration may be required as a rule of prudence where testimony does not inspire confidence and circumstances raise suspicion.

The appellate court substantially relied on two witnesses who, according to the prosecution case, arrived after the incident, while the initial version did not identify an eyewitness to the occurrence. Their evidence therefore required careful scrutiny as to their personal knowledge and reliability.

No injury report was produced, and the appellate court’s reliance on the alleged failure to arrange a medical examination could not convert an investigative omission into proof of assault or injury.

Considering these deficiencies cumulatively, the High Court held that the trial court’s acquittal was a reasonably possible view and that the appellate court had not shown its findings to be perverse, manifestly unreasonable or contrary to the evidence.

Hemant’s bail bonds, if any, were discharged, and the record was directed to be returned.