Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Two Views Possible - Legal Principle and Main Point When two reasonably possible views arise from evidence—one favoring the accused and one against—the courts generally uphold the view that favors the accused, especially in cases of acquittal. The law emphasizes that if the lower court has taken a possible and reasonable view, the appellate court should not interfere with the acquittal ["
STATE OF U.P. vs RAMESH ALIAS PYARA AND 7 ORS. - Allahabad
"] ["STATE OF U.P. vs BALVIR SINGH - Allahabad
"] ["STATE OF U.P. vs MUKESH - Allahabad
"] ["STATE OF U.P. vs ROHIT KALIA AND 2 ORS. - Allahabad
"].Legal Doctrine and Rationale It is an established legal position that courts should not reverse an acquittal simply because they might have taken a different, possibly against the accused, view. The fact that two views are plausible indicates that the prosecution has not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The courts are instructed to follow the view that is more favorable to the accused when multiple reasonable interpretations exist ["
STATE OF U.P. vs RAMESH ALIAS PYARA AND 7 ORS. - Allahabad
"] ["STATE OF U.P. vs BALVIR SINGH - Allahabad
"] ["STATE OF U.P. vs MUKESH - Allahabad
"] ["STATE OF U.P. vs ROHIT KALIA AND 2 ORS. - Allahabad
"].Appellate Court's Approach and Finality of Findings The appellate courts are expected to be very cautious in disturbing acquittals where two possible views exist. They should adopt the view in favor of the accused unless the view against them is perverse or unreasonable. Interference is justified only if the view taken by the trial court is not possible under the facts and circumstances ["
STATE OF U.P. vs VED PAL AND ANR. - Allahabad
"] ["REENA vs STATE OF U.P. and 3 OTHERS - Allahabad
"] ["MANOJ vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 ORS. - Allahabad
"] ["VIMLA vs STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS - Allahabad
"] ["KALLU PANDEY vs State of U.P. AND ANOTHER - Allahabad
"] ["STATE OF U.P. vs RAMESH - Allahabad
"] ["MOHD. SHAREEF vs STATE OF U.P. and 2 OTHERS - Allahabad
"] ["MAHADEV vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 ORS. - Allahabad
"].Summary and Conclusion The overarching principle is that in cases where two plausible interpretations of the evidence exist, the view favoring the accused should be adopted, and courts should refrain from disturbing the acquittal unless the alternative view is perverse or impossible. This approach safeguards the benefit of doubt to the accused and maintains the finality of acquittals based on reasonable, possible views ["
STATE OF U.P. vs BALVIR SINGH - Allahabad
"] ["STATE OF U.P. vs VED PAL AND ANR. - Allahabad
"] ["REENA vs STATE OF U.P. and 3 OTHERS - Allahabad
"].References:["
STATE OF U.P. vs RAMESH ALIAS PYARA AND 7 ORS. - Allahabad
"]["STATE OF U.P. vs BALVIR SINGH - Allahabad
"]["STATE OF U.P. vs MUKESH - Allahabad
"]["STATE OF U.P. vs ROHIT KALIA AND 2 ORS. - Allahabad
"]["STATE OF U.P. vs VED PAL AND ANR. - Allahabad
"]["SMT. MALTI DEVI vs STATE OF U.P. AND 4 ORS - Allahabad
"]["2025 0 Supreme(SC) 988"]["REENA vs STATE OF U.P. and 3 OTHERS - Allahabad
"]["MANOJ vs STATE OF U.P. AND 3 ORS. - Allahabad
"]["BABADEEN vs State of U.P. AND 5 OTHERS - Allahabad"]["RAJ KUMAR vs State of U.P. AND 5 OTHERS - Allahabad
"]["STATE OF U.P. vs PRAMOD KUMAR AND 7 OTHERS - Allahabad
"]["VIKAS SHARMA vs STATE OF U.P. AND 2 ORS. - Allahabad
"]["BABADEEN vs State of U.P. AND 5 OTHERS - Allahabad"]["2022 0 Supreme(All) 1634"]["VIMLA vs STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS - Allahabad
"]["KALLU PANDEY vs State of U.P. AND ANOTHER - Allahabad
"]
In the realm of Indian criminal justice, a fundamental question often arises: When two views are possible from the evidence—one favouring the guilt of the accused and the other their innocence—which one should courts adopt? This principle, deeply embedded in jurisprudence, underscores the and safeguards against miscarriages of justice. It is particularly crucial in , where higher courts exercise caution before overturning trial decisions.
This blog post delves into this settled legal doctrine, drawing from precedents and rulings. While this provides general insights, it is not legal advice—consult a qualified lawyer for specific cases.
Under Indian criminal law, if two reasonable views emerge from the evidence on record—one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence—the view favouring the accused must always be preferred. This is not merely a guideline but a '' running through criminal justice administration. As affirmed: It is a settled principle of law that when on the basis of the evidence on record two views could be taken - one in favour of the accused and the other against the accused - the one favouring the accused should always be accepted. 2009 5 Supreme 500
Similarly: if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 2008 5 Supreme 685 This extends to trials as a human right of the accused. 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 359
Key aspects include:- : Courts must view evidence comprehensively. Minor contradictions may not dismantle the prosecution's case if guilt is clear, but equipoise tilts towards innocence.- : Prosecution bears the burden to prove guilt .- Judge-Made Guideline: This is a , not a . 2008 5 Supreme 685
, including High Courts and the , have full power to review evidence but must show restraint. They cannot interfere with a 's acquittal merely because they prefer the prosecution's view. If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the accused had it tried the case. 2018 3 Supreme 720 2008 1 Supreme 317
The fact that two views exist signals that guilt is not proven beyond doubt, entitling the accused to acquittal. 2018 3 Supreme 720 Trial courts' assessments of witness demeanour carry weight, and reversals require the acquittal to be or ignoring material evidence. For instance, plausible views from contradictions or medical mismatches justify upholding acquittals. 2009 5 Supreme 500 2015 0 Supreme(SC) 360 2016 0 Supreme(Mad) 2939 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 2076 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1634
Landmark rulings like Sambhaji Hindurao Deshmukh, , and cement this principle. The which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal case is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. 2008 5 Supreme 685 2013 0 Supreme(Del) 1286
Further: When two views are reasonably possible... should not disturb the same merely on the ground that if it were in the position of the , it would have taken the alternative view. 1978 0 Supreme(SC) 265 Post-acquittal, the presumption strengthens. 2018 3 Supreme 720
Courts may intervene if the 's acquittal is , wholly unreasonable, based on conjectures, or overlooks compelling evidence. Where view taken by was uncalled for, not based upon facts of the case or legal evidence tendered in the case and was result of conjectures, imagination and hypothesis- held justified in re-examining whole evidence and convicting accused. 2002 1 Supreme 622 2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1523
High Courts must explicitly dispel trial reasons. Defective investigations alone do not mandate acquittal if guilt evidence holds. 2002 1 Supreme 622 In one noted argument, reversal without perversity finding urged acquittal reinstatement. 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 223
This principle recurs across diverse cases, affirming its robustness.
In a appeal, the dismissed prosecution challenge: View taken by is reasonable and possible view- No other view is possible on considering evidence adduced by prosecution. 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2521 The trial acquittal stood due to doubts over bribe demand timing.
Under , while one court reversed a acquittal for failing to rebut presumption under , it acknowledged: If two views are possible, the view favouring the accused to be taken into consideration. 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 2115 However, here the trial view was deemed flawed by ignoring evidence.
In another corruption case: If two views are possible, the view favouring the accused to be taken into consideration. 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 1081 Acquittal upheld for unproven demand/acceptance and sanction issues.
Property dispute under : Acquittal confirmed as If two views are possible, the view favouring the accused shall be taken into account. 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 149 Insufficient proof of trespass/intimidation.
Even in insanity pleas: if two views are possible then the view favouring the Accused should be taken. 2014 0 Supreme(Bom) 1723
Uttar Pradesh echoed: If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record... the prosecution has not proved the guilt... .
These illustrate consistent application across corruption, cheque bounce, and general crimes.
The 'two views' principle fortifies the accused's rights, ensuring convictions rest on unassailable proof. It promotes judicial restraint, especially in acquittal appeals, preventing overreach. While exceptions exist for manifest errors, the default favours innocence— a cornerstone of fair trials in India.
This overview draws from established precedents for educational purposes. Legal outcomes depend on facts; seek professional advice.
References (select key documents):1. 2009 5 Supreme 500 - Upholds acquittal on contradictions.2. 2008 5 Supreme 685 - SC precedents compilation.3. 2018 3 Supreme 720 - Acquittal appeal limits.4. 2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 2521 - Corruption acquittal upheld.
#TwoViewsPrinciple, #CriminalLawIndia, #BenefitOfDoubt
If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view ... The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the #HL_STA....
If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have taken the view against the ... The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and ....
If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because ... The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitl....
If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it ... The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to ....
If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it ... The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to ....
The very fact that two views are possible makes it reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court ... which is a possible view in a reasonable manner, then the same shall not be interfered with. ... against the accused had it tried the case.
If two views, one favouring the accused and the other favouring the prosecution are possible, then the appellate Court would not be justified in substituting its view over the view taken by the trial Court. ... Law is well settled by a catena of judgments of this Court that while considering an appeal against acquittal, the appellate Court should be very slow in disturbing the findings of the acquittal which can be done only in a situation, where no ....
If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely ... The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused ... It is an ....
If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the ... The very fact that two views are possible makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled ... It is an ....
If two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, one favouring the accused and one against the accused, the High Court is not expected to reverse the acquittal merely because it would have makes it clear that the prosecution has not proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and consequently the accused is entitled to benefit of taken the view against the accused#HL_....
Also that, where two views are possible, one favouring accused must be preferred. In event, having regard to materials on record, court comes to conclusion on basis thereof that only one view is possible, a judgment of acquittal may be interfered with. Complainant filed complaint with Anti Corruption Bureau, who raided and caught red-handed while accepting bribe from complainant. (C) In the case of Arjun Bajirao Kale Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2009 (2) Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 202 : [2009 ALL MR (Cri) 85], in the appeal against conviction of the appellant for the offences punishable ....
If two views are possible, the view favouring the accused to be taken into consideration. By applying the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2007 (4) SCC 752 and since the matter was compromised and cheque has been issued and once the issuance of cheque has been admitted by D.W.1 in his cross examination and D.W.2 has fortified the same, I am of the view that the Trial Court without considering Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.5 and without appreciating the cross examination of D.W.1 and D.W.2, has come to the conclusion and acquitted the respondent/accused. Hence, the judgment of....
(i) This Court cannot interfere with the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court unless it is perverse. If two views are possible, the view favouring the accused to be taken into consideration. (ii) P.W.1 is not a competent person to accord sanction and that has been clearly spoken by P.W.5. The trial Court has rightly held that P.W.1 is not a competent person.
The trial Court has considered all the aspects in proper perspective and rightly acquitted the accused. It is further submitted that the judgment of acquittal cannot be set aside unless the judgment is perverse. If two views are possible, the view favouring the accused shall be taken into account. As per the evidence of P.W.4, the accused was standing in the gate and abused the appellant, but he has not stated anything about that the accused trespassed into the property.
It was submitted that if two views are possible then the view favouring the Accused should be taken. It was contended, therefore, that though the panel of doctors had not confirmed that the Accused was completely sane, it had confirmed about the possibility of psychiatric illness. It was, therefore, submitted that the Accused had discharged his burden and it was conclusively established by the expert evidence of doctors that the Accused was of unsound mind at the time of incident. It was submitted that the evidence of P.W. 2 – Vijay Gulave who was the conductor accompanying....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
