Acquittal upheld where prosecutrix’s age remained unproven and material contradictions rendered the prosecution story unreliable.

The State filed an application under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking leave to appeal against a judgment dated 30.06.2022, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 341, 354, 354A(1)(i) of the IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 02.04.2019, the accused stopped the minor prosecutrix while she was returning from defecation, made advances, held her hand, threw her to the ground, and choked her.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused after examining seven witnesses, finding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

1. Whether the prosecution successfully established the minority of the victim to attract the provisions of the POCSO Act.

2. Whether the testimonies of the prosecutrix and her mother were sufficiently reliable and consistent to overturn the order of acquittal.

3. Whether there is any perversity or error of law in the Trial Court’s judgment that warrants interference by the Appellate Court.

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

The court relied on the evidentiary standard that the prosecution must prove guilt "beyond all reasonable doubt".

If two views are possible, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted (State of Gujarat v. Jayrajbhai Punjabhai Varu).

Suspicion cannot replace proof (Nikhil Chandra Mondal v. State of W.B.).

An appellate court should not reverse an acquittal unless the trial court’s decision is illegal, perverse, or based on an error of fact (Mallappa v. State of Karnataka).

Regarding the victim's age, the mother's testimony suggested the prosecutrix was 19 years old (born one year after a 20-year-old marriage), contradicting the school register and the grandmother's claims; thus, minority was not proved.

The court found it "unnatural" that the victim could scream while her mouth was allegedly gagged.

The claim that the mother and daughter went to the fields to defecate was deemed unreliable since the family had a toilet at home.

The medical evidence provided by PW-5 (Dr. Neha Sharma) showed no external injuries or scratch marks, directly contradicting the prosecutrix's claims of physical struggle.

The court concluded that the Trial Court's view was a "legally plausible view" based on these material contradictions and lack of corroboration.

The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the subsequent criminal appeal.