Acquittal Upheld Where Prosecutrix’s Testimony Is Weakened by Hostile Eyewitnesses, Material Omissions, and Prior Enmity

The prosecution alleged that on October 24, 2021, the accused intercepted the minor prosecutrix, tied her limbs with tape near a sitaphal tree, and attempted to undress.

The prosecutrix’s aunt (PW-1) and her daughter (PW-2) purportedly arrived with a torch, causing the accused to flee.

Following a trial in S.C. No. 58/2021, the Special Judge (POCSO Act), Betul, acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 341, 354, and 509 of the IPC, and Sections 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act via judgment dated July 21, 2022.

The State filed an application under Section 378 of the CrPC seeking leave to appeal against this acquittal.

1. Whether the trial court's judgment of acquittal was perverse or based on a misreading of evidence given that the prosecutrix supported the prosecution's case in her examination-in-chief.

2. Whether the appellate court should interfere with an order of acquittal when a plausible view has been taken by the trial court.

Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

Established precedents, including H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), which dictate that the presumption of innocence is strengthened by an acquittal.

The principle that it should not interfere unless the trial court's view is "perverse, manifestly erroneous, or wholly unreasonable," and if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be followed.

The High Court observed that while the prosecutrix (PW-3) supported the story in chief, her testimony was undermined by significant contradictions and admissions during cross-examination, including an admission that she was "tutored" by lady police.

The alleged eye-witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) turned hostile, stating there was total darkness and they did not see the accused at the scene.

The court noted the existence of a prior land dispute between the accused and the prosecutrix’s uncle, Dhengu, who had escorted her to the police station, suggesting a motive for false implication.

Crucial physical evidence, such as the tape and rope allegedly used to tie the victim, was never seized, and the medical report showed no external injuries.

The High Court found the trial court's skepticism of the prosecutrix’s uncorroborated and suspicious testimony to be a legally plausible view.

The court answered that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

I.A. No. 22391/2022 seeking leave to appeal was dismissed, and the Criminal Appeal was consequently dismissed at the admission stage.