Absence of corroborative medical evidence and credible eyewitness testimony justifies acquittal in sexual assault cases.

The State of Chhattisgarh sought leave to appeal against a judgment dated 29.11.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), Raigarh, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 65(1) and 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that the respondent had an affair with the 15-year-old victim for 1.5 years and forcibly established sexual relations on 03.11.2024 at a friend's house.

The trial court acquitted the respondent on the grounds that the prosecution failed to prove the victim's minority and the act of rape beyond reasonable doubt.

Whether the trial court erred in discarding the evidence regarding the victim's age and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses.

Whether the High Court should grant leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal based on the alleged perversity of the trial court’s findings.

The Court applied Section 63 of the BNS (Definition of Rape).

The Court applied Section 3 of the POCSO Act (Penetrative Sexual Assault).

Regarding the scope of appellate interference, the Court relied on the principle that interference in acquittals is limited to cases of perversity or impossible views, citing *State of Rajasthan v. Kistoora Ram* (2022), which establishes that if two views are possible, the appellate court must not substitute the trial court’s view with its own.

The Court observed that the trial court meticulously examined both prosecution and defense evidence.

Key discrepancies undermined the prosecution's case: (i) Defense witnesses (DW-1 and DW-2), owners of the alleged site of the incident, denied the presence of the accused and victim on the date of the incident.

(ii) Medico-legal reports (PW-6 and PW-9) and the FSL report (Ex. P-25) showed no signs of rape or human spermatozoa.

(iii) The prosecution failed to conclusively prove the victim was under 18 at the time of the incident.

The Court found that the trial court’s reliance on the defense's unshaken testimony and the lack of corroborative medical evidence constituted a plausible and possible view, thus ousting the "perversity" requirement for appellate interference.

The Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming that the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

The petition for leave to appeal was rejected, and the appeal was dismissed.