The appellate court may in an appeal for enhancement of sentence—(i) reverse the finding and sentence and acquit or discharge the accused or order him to be retried by a court competent to try offence, or (ii) after the finding, maintaining the sentence, or with or without altering the finding, alter the nature or the extent, or the nature and extent of the sentence, so as to enhance or reduce the same.
The appellate court may in an appeal from any other order, alter or reverse such order, or make any amendment or any consequential or incidental order that may be just or proper. The sentence shall not be enhanced unless the accused has had an opportunity of showing cause against such enhancement. The appellate court shall further not inflict greater punishment for the offence which in his opinion the accused has committed, than might have been inflicted for that offence by the court passing the order or sentence under appeal.
(Section 386) Once the appellate court came to the conclusion that the view of the trial court was unreasonable, that itself would provide a reason for interference. Again, if it was found that the High Court applied the correct principles in setting aside the order of acquittal, the Supreme Court would not ordinarily interfere with the order of conviction passed by the High Court in an appeal against acquittal or review the entire evidence where the High Court was right in its view of evidence. Therefore, if the High Court has kept in view the rules and principles of appreciation of the entire evidence and has given reasons for setting aside the order of acquittal, this Court would not interfere with the order of the High Court. [.
Damodar Prasad v. State of Maharashtra, A.I.R.
1972 S.C. p. 622], In an appeal against an order of acquittal though the High Court has full power to review the evidence upon which an order of acquittal is founded, it is well settled that the presumption of innocence of the accused person is further reinforced by his acquittal by the trial court and the views of the trial Judge as to the credibility of the witnesses must be given proper weight and consideration and the slowness of an appellate court in disturbing a finding of fact arrived at by a judge who had the advantage of seeing the witnesses must also be taken in mind, and there must be substantial and compelling reasons for the appellate court to come to a conclusion different from that of the trial Judge. (State of Rajasthan v.
Shiv Singh, 1962 Rajasthan, p. 3).