ORDER 1. With the assistance of the learned counsel, we have perused the record as well as the judgments of the Trial court and the High Court. 2. The appeals by the State and by the complainant against the acquittal by the High Court of two of the accused Harpreet Singh and Chamkaur Singh must be considered in the light of the settled position. 3. In Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal , (2016) 16 SCC 418 this Court while reiterating the settled position has observed thus: " 9. In H. P. Admn. v. Om Prakash , (1972) 1 SCC 249 it was held by this Court: "4. In appeals against acquittal by special leave under Article 136, this Court has undoubted power to interfere with the findings of fact, no distinction being made between judgments of acquittal and conviction, though in the case of acquittals it will not ordinarily interfere with the appreciation of evidence or on findings of fact unless the High Court "acts perversely or otherwise improperly." 10. The above principle has been reiterated by this Court in a number of judicial decisions and the position of law that emerges from a comprehensive survey of these cases is that in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, this Court will not interfere with the judgment of the High Court unless the same is clearly unreasonable or perverse or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. The mere fact that another view could also have been taken on the evidence on record is not a ground for reversing an order of acquittal. [See State of U. P. v. Harihar Bux Singh , (1975) 3 SCC 167 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Ashok Kumar , (1979) 3 SCC 1 ; State of U. P. v. Gopi , (1980) Supp1 SCC 160; State of Karnataka v. Amajappa , (2003) 9 SCC 468 ; State of Uttar Pradesh v. Banne , (2009) 4 SCC 271 ; State of U. P. v. Guru Charan , (2010) 3 SCC 721 ; State of Haryana v. Shakuntla , (2012) 5 SCC 171 and Hamza v. Muhammadkutty , (2013) 11 SCC 150 . 11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. 11. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that the guilt of the accused must be proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The burden of proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt lies on the prosecution and it never shifts. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases 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. [Vide Kali Ram v. State of H. P. , (1973) 2 SCC 808 ; State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram , (2003) 8 SCC 180 ; Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka , (2007) 4 SCC 415 ; Upendra Pradhan v. State of Orissa , (2015) 11 SCC 124 and Golbar Hussain v. State of Assam , (2015) 11 SCC 242 .? 4. Having considered the evidence on the touchstone of the above principles, we find that the view which has been taken by the High Court is certainly a possible view to take on the basis of the evidence on record. We are unable to accept the submission that there has been a perversity in the findings. 5. In the circumstances, we find no merit in these appeals. 6. The criminal appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 7. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.