A reasonable, non-perverse acquittal must stand on appeal.

The State appealed the acquittal of the respondents by the Additional Sessions Judge, Vadodara, of charges under Sections 354, 324 and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

The prosecution alleged that the first accused attempted to take the minor complainant towards a field when she was travelling to school and that a later confrontation near a dairy involved an assault and caste-related abuse

At trial, the complainant did not support the prosecution’s account of the first incident; the court also noted contradictions among witnesses about the later confrontation and who used the alleged abusive words, as well as an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, and the State challenged that decision

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in acquitting the respondents on the evidence before it

2. Whether the acquittal involved an error of law or fact, or was illegal or perverse so as to warrant appellate interference

The appeal was brought under Section 378(1)(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against acquittal on charges under Sections 354, 324 and 114 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(11) of the SC/ST Act

The Court applied the principles in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reaffirmed in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka: an appellate court may review and reappreciate the evidence, but an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence, and where two reasonable views are possible the acquittal should not be disturbed; interference is warranted where the Trial Court’s approach is perverse or affected by manifest error

On the Atrocities Act, the Court cited Shajan Skaria v. State of Kerala for the requirement that the essential ingredients of the charged offence—including caste-based intent to humiliate—must be made out, and referred to Sohanvir @ Sohanvir Dhama v. State of U.P. and other decisions concerning the statutory requirement of abuse in a place within public view

The complainant’s failure to support the prosecution left the alleged first incident without corroboration

As to the later confrontation, the witnesses gave materially inconsistent accounts of the scuffle and of who uttered the alleged caste-related words; the prosecution also did not substantiate the evidence that Sanjay first approached Valan Police Station

The FIR was lodged more than two months after the incident, without a satisfactory explanation

In light of these evidentiary deficiencies, the Court held that the prosecution had not proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that the Trial Court’s assessment was not perverse or otherwise a basis for appellate interference

The appeal was dismissed and the Trial Court’s acquittal confirmed; the bail bond was cancelled and the record and proceedings were directed to be returned to the Trial Court