Acquittal affirmed where material contradictions and lack of independent corroboration create reasonable doubt in sexual harassment case.

The State appealed against the judgment dated 23.08.2017 passed by the JMFC, Birsinghpur Pali, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 452, 354, 323, 294, and 506 Part-II of the IPC.

The prosecution alleged that on 18.04.2013, the accused entered the complainant’s house, attempted to outrage her modesty, assaulted her and her minor son, and issued death threats.

The trial court acquitted the accused due to material contradictions and lack of independent corroboration.

1. Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on an erroneous appreciation of evidence, warranting interference by the High Court under Section 378 of the CrPC.

2. Whether the testimonies of the related and interested witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, and PW-3) are reliable enough to sustain a conviction in the absence of corroboration from independent witnesses who turned hostile.

Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

Principles established in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), which dictate that an appellate court must not interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's view is a "legally plausible view," even if a contrary view is possible.

Acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence.

Interference is only permissible in cases of patent perversity or misreading of material evidence, as held in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024).

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to exhibit the FIR (Ex.D/1), which was a critical procedural lapse given the unexplained delay in filing (incident on 18.04.2013; FIR on 19.04.2013).

Upon scrutiny, the testimonies of PW-1 (prosecutrix), PW-2 (niece), and PW-3 (daughter) were found to be riddled with contradictions regarding the sequence of events and the nature of the alleged assault.

Specifically, PW-2 and PW-3 did not support the allegation of outraging modesty (Sec. 354 IPC) and admitted they were away fetching water when the dispute began.

The medical evidence provided by PW-7 showed no visible injuries on the victims, undermining the prosecution's claim of physical assault.

Consequently, the trial court's decision to grant the benefit of doubt was deemed a reasonable and plausible interpretation of the evidence.

The State failed to demonstrate any perversity or illegality in the lower court's reasoning.

The appeal was dismissed as being devoid of merit.