words, the disposal of the appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., shall not be by cryptic or non- reasoned order. In the decision in Govindaraju v. State by Sivaramapuram PS2, this Court held that a very vital distinction has to be kept in mind while dealing with appeal under Section 374, Cr.P.C., that interference would be justifiable only when distinction is kept between perversity in appreciation of evidence and mere possibility of another view. Furthermore, it was 2 (2012) 4 SCC 722 Page 4 of 21 Criminal Appeal No. 2129 of 2014held therein that it would not be appropriate for the High Court to merely record that the judgment of the trial Court was perverse without specifically dealing with the facets of perversity relating to the issues of law and/or appreciation of evidence, as otherwise such observation of the High Court would not be sustainable in law. 8. Having taken note of the position settled thus we may add that when the High Court acquitted the convict(s) in the appeal filed