Acquittal Upheld Where Failure to Prove Minority and Lack of Corroboration Suggest Consensual Relationship

The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, Asaf Khan, by the Sessions Judge, Panna, for offenses under Sections 341, 366, 506-II IPC and Section 25(1-B)(B) of the Arms Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 08.04.2021, the accused abducted the prosecutrix at knife-point and threatened her to marry him.

The prosecutrix was recovered the following morning.

During the trial, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses, including the prosecutrix (PW-2), her father (PW-1), and her brother (PW-3).

The trial court acquitted the accused, prompting the State to seek leave to appeal under Section 378(III) of the Cr.P.C.

1. Whether the prosecutrix was a minor at the time of the incident to sustain charges of abduction.

2. Whether the evidence presented by the prosecution, specifically regarding the use of a weapon and the alleged lack of consent, was sufficient to reverse the judgment of acquittal.

3. Whether the trial court’s view was plausible and legally sustainable under the restricted scope of appellate interference against acquittals.

Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. regarding appeals against acquittal.

Indian Penal Code (Sections 341, 366, 506-II) and the Arms Act (Section 25).

Appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "possible view" and not perverse, even if a contrary view is also possible (H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka).

The presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal.

The Court observed that the prosecution failed to provide cogent evidence regarding the prosecutrix's age; while documents (Ex. P/13 and P/14) were seized, no school officials were examined to prove them, and the prosecutrix herself claimed to be 18.

Regarding the alleged use of force, the Court noted a significant lacuna: the knife seized (Ex. P/9) was never shown to the prosecutrix for identification during her testimony.

The Court further highlighted that the prosecutrix traveled through various city locations on a motorcycle with the accused throughout the night without raising an alarm, suggesting a possible consensual relationship.

Considering that the prosecutrix admitted in cross-examination that "no one has committed wrong with her," the Court found the trial court’s assessment of the evidence to be reasonable.

The prosecution failed to prove the prosecutrix was a minor and failed to established the ingredients of the alleged offenses beyond reasonable doubt.

The application for leave to appeal (IA No. 1317/2023) was dismissed, and the acquittal was upheld.