JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the State and perused the material available on record. 2. The State is before us challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Ambedkar Nagar in Sessions Trial No.37 of 2010, arising out of Case Crime No.792 of 2009, under Sections 307/302 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, Police Station Rajesultanpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. 3. An appeal against the acquittal stands on a different footing from the appeal against the conviction. Hon'ble the Apex Court in a very recent judgment in the case of Sadhu Saran Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2016) 4 SCC 357 has considered this difference and has observed in paragraph no. 20 and 21 as under: - "20. Generally, an appeal against acquittal has always been altogether on a different pedestal from that of an appeal against conviction. In an appeal against acquittal where the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused is reinforced, the appellate court would interfere with the order of acquittal only when there is perversity of fact and law. However, we believe that the paramount consideration of the Court is to do substantial justice and avoid miscarriage of justice which can arise by acquitting the accused who is guilty of an offence. A miscarriage of justice that may occur by the acquittal of the guilty is no less than from the conviction of an innocent. This Court, while enunciating the principles with regard to the scope of powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, in Sambasivan v. State of Kerala 1998 SCC (Cri) 1320 has held: "7. The principles with regard to the scope of the powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal, are well settled. The powers of the appellate court in an appeal against acquittal are no less than in an appeal against conviction. But where on the basis of evidence on record two views are reasonably possible the appellate court cannot substitute its view in the place of that of the trial court. It is only when the approach of the trial in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal." 21. It is only when the approach of the trial in acquitting an accused is found to be clearly erroneous in its consideration of evidence on record and in deducing conclusions therefrom that the appellate court can interfere with the order of acquittal." 21. This Court, in several cases, has taken the consistent view that the appellate court, while dealing with an appeal against acquittal, has no absolute restriction in law to review and relook the entire evidence on which the order of acquittal is founded. If the appellate court, on scrutiny, finds that the decision of the court below is based on erroneous views and against settled position of law, then the interference of the appellate court with such an order is imperative." In the light of the aforesaid guidelines, the impugned judgment has to be considered from the point of view whether the view taken by the trial court was a probable view based on the material on record or it is an absolutely erroneous judgment devoid of merits. Learned A.G.A. has submitted that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in correct perspective and has acquitted the accused persons. We have gone through the impugned judgment and lower court record. Though it is a case of double murder but the prosecution evidence was so contradictory, therefore, learned trial court was left with no option but to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused persons. As per case of the prosecution, there was direct eye witness account but the deceased persons were admitted in the hospital as unknown persons. It has come in evidence that the father and uncle of the deceased who were Sub Inspector and Constable respectively were posted in the same police station. Statements of the witness namely Ateeq Ahmad was also recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. wherein there were several contradictions from the prosecution evidence. Apart from it, learned trial court has also observed that there were medical contradictions in the evidence and the FIR was anti-timed. At one place, PW-1 the complainant has stated that the assailants had covered their faces. He has also stated that when he reached the place of occurrence then Anil Yadav was murmuring while learned trial court keeping in view the injuries sustained by him, has observed that he was not in a position to speak after receiving such injury. At one place, PW-1 the complainant has stated that the assailants had covered their faces. He has also stated that when he reached the place of occurrence then Anil Yadav was murmuring while learned trial court keeping in view the injuries sustained by him, has observed that he was not in a position to speak after receiving such injury. The injury was on the head and the brain matter was coming out. There was absolutely no motive assigned to the accused persons to commit such an offence and keeping an overall view of these circumstances, learned trial court has acquitted the accused persons. A criminal trial proceeds with the presumption of innocence of the accused persons. With the acquittal of the accused persons this presumption of innocence stands fortified. So very strong and cogent reasons must exist in interfering the judgment of acquittal. Keeping in view the aforesaid weakness of the prosecution case, as noted by the trial court, we are of the considered view that the view taken by the trial court was a probable and logical view, which is based on valid reasons. The judgment of the trial court cannot be said to be illegal, illogical and improbable and not based on material on record. So we are satisfied that there is absolutely no hope of success in this appeal and accordingly, no interference is called for. Hence the application for grant of leave to appeal is hereby rejected. Surendra Vikram Singh Rathore,J. Anil Kumar Srivastava-II,J. State of U.P. Vs Golu Singh @ Satyendra Singh & Ors. U/S 378 CR.P.C. No. - 84 of 2016 For the Petitioner : Govt. Advocate Since the application for grant of leave to appeal has been rejected, therefore, the appeal also stands dismissed. 25.7.2016