Absence of Forensic Evidence for Alleged Cyber-Harassment Renders Criminal Acquittal Legally Plausible and Justifiable

The State of Madhya Pradesh appealed against the judgment dated February 23, 2023, passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Sehore, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 354(A)(1)(ii)(iv) and 506 Part-II of the IPC, Sections 11(i)/12 of the POCSO Act, and various sections of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

The prosecution alleged that the accused repeatedly called the minor prosecutrix, made obscene remarks, and threatened her and her sister via mobile phone and WhatsApp, including sending a photograph of himself holding a pistol.

The trial court acquitted the accused due to significant investigative lapses, specifically the failure to seize the mobile phones or produce call detail records (CDR).

1. Whether the trial court erred in acquitting the accused despite the prosecutrix being identified as a child and providing testimony against the respondent.

2. Whether the absence of scientific and electronic evidence (CDR, tower locations, forensic analysis of messages) is fatal to the prosecution’s case under the IPC, POCSO, and SC/ST Acts.

3. Whether there are sufficient grounds for an appellate court to interfere with a judgment of acquittal.

Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure regarding appeals against acquittal.

The principles established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 581, which mandate that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "possible view".

Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka (2024) 3 SCC 544, emphasizing that interference is only warranted in cases of patent perversity, misreading of evidence, or where the only possible conclusion is guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The High Court observed that while the prosecutrix (PW-3) and her father (PW-2) supported the prosecution's story, their testimony lacked essential corroboration.

Since the entire offense was allegedly committed via mobile phone, the court held it was "incumbent upon the prosecution" to produce call details, tower locations, and forensic evidence regarding the WhatsApp messages and photographs.

In the absence of a printout of the messages or forensic verification that the accused was the sender, the court determined that the ingredients of Section 354 IPC and the POCSO Act were not proven.

The Court reasoned that any person could misuse another's photograph, making the police's failure to investigate the phone numbers fatal to the case.

Following the "double presumption of innocence" in acquittals, the Court found the trial court's view to be legally plausible and not perverse.

The court held that the trial court’s findings were neither faulty nor unreasonable given the prosecution's failure to collect vital electronic and forensic evidence.

The acquittal of the respondent was upheld as the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt.