primacy of trial court's plausible view in acquittal appeals

When the evidence on record admits of two reasonable or plausible conclusions, the appellate court is strictly precluded from disturbing the findings of acquittal recorded by the trial court. Reversal of an acquittal cannot be justified merely because the appellate court, upon reappreciation of the evidence, arrives at a different view that appears equally or more plausible. The trial court has the primary advantage of observing the demeanor of witnesses and evaluating the oral and documentary evidence firsthand, and its plausible interpretation must be respected unless demonstrated to be manifestly absurd or perverse. Reversing an acquittal requires a specific finding that the view taken by the trial court was one which no reasonable person could have taken under the circumstances. The mere existence of a second possible view pointing toward the guilt of the accused is legally insufficient to overturn a well-reasoned judgment of acquittal. Therefore, where the trial court's evaluation of circumstantial evidence or witness credibility remains a possible and logical view, it must be upheld by the appellate court. (Tulasareddi @ Mudakappa & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka & Ors. | 2026 INSC 67)