In Mohd. Naushad v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2023 INSC 605, (Lajpat Nagar Bomb Blast case) reiterated that:

It is not enough for the High Court and the Supreme Court to take a different view of the evidence; there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong in appreciating the evidence.

In an appeal against acquittal by special leave under Article 136, the Supreme Court has undoubted power to interfere with the findings of fact.

None of the given options is correct

None of the following propositions: "It is not enough for the High Court and the Supreme Court to take a different view of the evidence; there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong in appreciating the evidence"; "In an appeal against acquittal by special leave under Article 136, the Supreme Court has undoubted power to interfere with the findings of fact"; or the conjunction of both propositions "It is not enough for the High Court and the Supreme Court to take a different view of the evidence; there must also be substantial and compelling reasons for holding that the trial court was wrong in appreciating the evidence" AND "In an appeal against acquittal by special leave under Article 136, the Supreme Court has undoubted power to interfere with the findings of fact"