The courts don't believe either side - at least they are not supposed to. The evidence is presented, and then it compels people to believe one side or the other. Although the facts are the facts, there is no such thing as proof, only evidence - which we then choose to be swayed by or not. And each of us has a different line for where it tips over into "beyond a reasonable doubt" territory.
I am not the court, so I can be biased. I tend to trust and verify victims, while at the same time knowing that sometimes (rarely) people lie even about these things.
If there is one accuser - I tend to withhold assuming he is guilty. But when the count of accusers is 3 or more, that is when I flip over and assume he is guilty. You can get one person to lie, maybe even two. Coordinating 3 or more people to lie about that kind of thing would be much more difficult and unlikely.
At least that is how I settle things out when I see stuff like that.