In a recent case of Kripesh Sabdakar v. State of Tripura and Ors., the High Court of Tripura mentioned about "double presumption". The context of this term arose when the Court was dealing with an appeal against acquittal by Trial Court. While adorning the robe of an Appellate Court, the Hon'ble High Court stated that whenever a Trial Court acquits an accused and then there is an appeal filed against this acquittal, it gives rise to double presumption. A previous mentioning of the same concept was made in the case of Ghurey Lal v. State of Uttar Pradesh(2008).

The first presumption is the basic one which is that a person is innocent until proven guilty. This is the primary perception which should prevail as per the criminal jurisprudence. However, this perception gets doubled and this is when the second presumption appears that no specific evidence could be produced against a person in the trial stage.

If we look at the Realist School Of Law, we understand that a judge's mind plays an important role in deciding a case beyond the legislation. However, in a case of Double Presumption, a judge's mind receives a pre-conceived framework about the accused person's innocence and the case for the appellant becomes more challenging.

According to our procedural laws, an Appellate Court can reconsider or re-appreciate the evidence, but cannot negate or ignore the findings of the Trial Court as the Trial Court is the primary court to record evidence. The Hon'ble High Court made a statement that it is extremely necessary to have a very strong and unshakeable reason to overturn the decision of acquittal made by the Trial Court.