Acquittal upheld as inordinate unexplained delay in FIR and non-examination of material witnesses vitiate the prosecution case.

The State appealed against a judgment dated November 23, 2022, where the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Umaria, acquitted the respondent of charges involving criminal trespass, sexual harassment, and criminal intimidation under Sections 452, 354, 506 Part-II of the IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on July 19, 2020, the accused entered the victim's home while she was alone and made non-consensual physical contact.

The FIR was lodged five days later on July 24, 2020.

The trial court acquitted the accused citing a lack of credible evidence and procedural inconsistencies.

1. Whether the trial court’s judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of material evidence, warranting interference by the appellate court.

2. Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and the non-examination of material witnesses proved fatal to the prosecution's case.

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

It relied on established judicial principles from H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), which dictate that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "possible view" based on the evidence.

The court further cited Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024) regarding the high threshold for reversing acquittals, requiring a finding of patent perversity, selective appreciation of evidence, or manifest error of law.

The High Court found that the prosecution failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the five-day delay in filing the FIR.

The court noted significant contradictions in the victim's testimony regarding the preparation of the written report and her movements following the incident.

Crucially, the prosecution failed to examine the victim’s sister, who was present during the alleged incident, and other family members who were reportedly at the home, despite their status as material witnesses.

No independent witnesses were presented, and testimony regarding a neighbor’s mobile phone was never verified.

The court determined that the trial judge's skepticism regarding witness credibility was a legally plausible interpretation of the record.

The court refused to interfere with the lower court's decision as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the appeal was formally dismissed.