Absence of injuries or alarms by married victim makes prosecution version of rape improbable.

The State of Uttar Pradesh filed an application for leave to appeal against a judgment dated 23.07.2019.

The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 323 IPC but acquitted Babloo @ Ashok Singh of charges under Sections 376 and 452 IPC, and acquitted Maksoodan under Section 452 IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 12.04.2014, Babloo entered the informant's house, dragged her into a room, and committed rape, while Maksoodan assaulted the intervening family members.

The Trial Court acquitted the respondents of the serious charges based on medical evidence showing no injuries, the presence of five children/family members making the incident improbable, and material contradictions in the victim's testimony.

1. Whether the Trial Court’s findings regarding the acquittal of the accused under Sections 376 and 452 IPC were perverse or unsustainable based on the evidence on record.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its power under Section 378 CrPC to interfere with an order of acquittal when a "possible view" has been taken by the Trial Court.

Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

Bannareddy v. State of Karnataka, holding that High Courts should not reappreciate evidence unless findings are perverse.

Jayamma v. State of Karnataka, establishing that if the Trial Court’s view is a "possible view," it should not be set aside merely because a more probable view exists.

Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, which emphasizes the "double presumption" of innocence in favor of an acquitted accused.

The High Court examined the Trial Court’s reasoning, noting that the victim was a mother of five and her family members were present during the alleged 7:00 p.m. incident, yet she raised no alarm.

The Court observed that Dr. Karuna Gupta (PW-3) found no external or internal injuries to the victim's private parts, contradicting the allegation of forcible rape.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to examine independent witnesses and that the defense's suggestion of "village rivalry" provided a plausible alternative context.

Applying the "self-restraint doctrine," the Court determined that the Trial Court’s appreciation of the victim’s testimony as inconsistent and unreliable was a "possible view" and did not suffer from patent illegality or perversity.

The Criminal Misc. Application for Leave to Appeal was rejected, and the Government Appeal was dismissed.