As per the case facts, the appellants were accused of murder and acquitted by the Trial Court. The State of Karnataka appealed this acquittal to the High Court, which reversed ... the acquittal and found the appellants guilty. The appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court against the High Court's decision. The question arose whether the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without finding illegality, perversity, or error in the Trial Court's reasoning, and if the evidence conclusively proved guilt. Finally, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without sufficient findings of illegality or perversity. Even upon fresh appreciation of evidence, the Supreme Court found the circumstances inconclusive for a conclusion of guilt, stating that conviction requires the accused "must have" committed the offense, not "may have." The impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and the Trial Court's acquittal order was restored, resulting in the appellants' acquittal.