Acquittal interference limited to perverse or wholly unsustainable trial court findings.

The State of Chhattisgarh sought leave to appeal an acquittal judgment dated 01.12.2021 in Special Sessions Case (POCSO Act) No. 238 of 2019, where the respondent was acquitted of offenses under Section 509, 354-D, 354, 376(2)(a) of the IPC and Sections 4, 8, 12 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution stemmed from a complaint lodged on 17.03.2016 by the victim's mother (PW-4), alleging the accused touched the victim inappropriately and committed obscene acts.

During the trial, the victim (PW-3) described a rape incident that contradicted her mother's testimony, and in cross-examination, she admitted the accused had not committed any wrongful act.

The mother (PW-4) also denied the written complaint and FIR during cross-examination.

The place of occurrence became doubtful due to contradictory statements between the victim and the site maps.

The trial court found the prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt and granted the benefit of doubt.

1. Whether the trial court committed a grave error in acquitting the respondent by unjustifiably discarding prosecution evidence, including the victim's testimony and age proof.

2. Whether the findings recorded by the trial court are perverse, contrary to the evidence, or unsustainable in law, warranting interference by the appellate court.

The court applied the principle that the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited.

It relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in *State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram*, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, which states that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's view is impossible or perverse, or if there is no possibility of intervention despite two views being possible.

Additionally, the court implicitly applied the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt required for criminal convictions and the benefit of doubt doctrine.

The High Court found that the trial court meticulously examined and appreciated the evidence, including the testimonies of the victim (PW-3), her mother (PW-4), and the Investigating Officer (PW-5).

The trial court's decision was based on significant discrepancies and contradictions in the prosecution's case.

Specifically, the victim's testimony was inconsistent, and she admitted under cross-examination that the accused had not committed any wrongful act.

Furthermore, the victim's mother contradicted her own written complaint and the FIR, and the exact place of occurrence became doubtful due to conflicting statements.

These inconsistencies led the trial court to conclude that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The High Court determined that the trial court's findings were based on a proper appreciation of the evidence and represented a possible and plausible view, thus not meeting the threshold for perversity or unsustainability required for an appellate court to overturn an acquittal, as established in *State of Rajasthan vs. Kistoora Ram*.

Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal was dismissed in limine, and the accompanying acquittal appeal also stood dismissed.