Acquittal upheld as unreliable prosecutrix testimony and hostile eyewitnesses failed to prove sexual assault beyond reasonable doubt.

The State appealed against the judgment dated 06.09.2022 passed by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Betul, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 452 and 354 of the IPC, Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act, and various sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 04.12.2018, the accused entered the house of the minor prosecutrix (aged 14 years, 10 months) while she was alone and molested her.

A written complaint was filed the following day.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused after finding the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by disregarding the testimony of the prosecutrix and the medical evidence.

2. Whether the findings of the Trial Court were perverse or illegal, warranting interference by the appellate court in a judgment of acquittal.

The Court applied Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. regarding leave to appeal against acquittal.

the prosecution must prove guilt beyond all reasonable doubt, and if two views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted, as established in State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu (2016) and Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B. (2023).

summary of principles for acquittal appeals from Mallappa & others v. State of Karnataka (2024), which mandates that an appellate court must demonstrate illegality or perversity to reverse an acquittal.

The High Court observed substantial contradictions in the prosecution's evidence. While the prosecutrix (PW-1) alleged the accused attempted to pull down her pants, this detail was missing from her previous police statement (Ex. D.01) and the FIR.

The alleged eyewitness, Balibai (PW-5), turned hostile and denied seeing the incident.

The sister's (PW-8) testimony was deemed unreliable due to material inconsistencies regarding her presence at the spot.

medical evidence through Dr. Amrit (PW-10) suggested the scratches on the victim could have been self-inflicted or caused by fingernails, but the victim never testified that the accused scratched her.

The court concluded that since the primary witness (PW-1) was unreliable, the derivative testimonies of the parents (PW-2 and PW-3) carried no weight.

The Court found no perversity or illegality in the lower court's judgment. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and the appeal against acquittal was dismissed.