Acquittal is sustainable where close intimacy between parties suggests absence of criminal intent and motive.

The State appealed against a judgment dated 22.09.2016 passed by the Special Judge, Panna, which acquitted the respondents of charges under Sections 457, 504, 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 26.08.2014, the accused, under the influence of alcohol and armed with a revolver, forcibly entered the government residence of the complainant (an SDM), used derogatory caste-based slurs ("Godin," "Adivasi"), threatened her life, and snatched her mobile phone.

The defense contended false implication, highlighting a close previous relationship between the parties.

1. Whether the trial court erred in its appreciation of evidence, specifically the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2, to justify an interference with the order of acquittal?

2. Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt despite a delay in lodging the FIR and evidence of prior intimacy?

Section 378(3) of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

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

The doctrine that interference is only permitted in cases of patent perversity, misreading of evidence, or miscarriage of justice, as emphasized in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. (2016).

The Court found the complainant’s (PW-1) testimony unreliable due to her admission of "close intimacy" and a "cordial" relationship with the accused, including tying him a Rakhi and exchanging WhatsApp messages.

The Court noted a significant delay in reporting; while the incident allegedly occurred on 26.08.2014, the FIR was officially received on 01.09.2014, and a purported prior complaint to the SP lacked any official endorsement or receipt.

The testimony of the peon (PW-2) was deemed doubtful as he was a subordinate to the complainant, did not raise an alarm during the incident, and was present outside his official duty hours.

The defense witnesses (DW-1 and DW-2) further cast doubt on the presence of the accused at the crime scene, leading the Court to determine that the trial court’s findings were a plausible view based on inconsistencies and lack of independent witnesses.

The High Court affirmed the judgment of acquittal and dismissed the appeal as being bereft of merit, noting that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal.