An acquittal based on a plausible evidentiary view cannot be overturned absent perversity.

The State preferred an appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 20 February 2024 by which the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO–I), Ambedkar Nagar acquitted the accused of offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC arising from Case Crime No. 739 of 2009, Police Station Kotwali Tanda

The prosecution alleged that on 2 July 2009, the informant’s daughter, stated to be approximately 13 years old and studying in Class VIII, was enticed and abducted by Sabir and Naveen Kumar while proceeding to school/coaching

The prosecution examined twelve witnesses, including the victim, her parents, medical witnesses and investigating officers

During trial, the victim and her parents resiled from the prosecution case. The victim stated that she had left voluntarily to visit relatives, denied abduction, confinement and rape, and alleged that her earlier statements under Sections 161 and 164 Cr.P.C. were made under pressure

The trial court also relied on contradictory school records, medical and radiological evidence assessing the victim’s age at approximately 16 years, the absence of injuries or spermatozoa, and the alibi evidence produced by accused Ubaidurrehman showing his presence in Nepal during the relevant period

The trial court consequently extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted the accused

1. Whether the trial court’s assessment of the victim’s age, based on contradictory educational records and medical/radiological evidence, was legally unsustainable or perverse?

2. Whether the contradictions and hostile testimony of the victim and other material witnesses nevertheless established the offences under Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

3. Whether the High Court could interfere with the acquittal merely because another view of the evidence was possible?

4. Whether the defence evidence established accused Ubaidurrehman’s plea of alibi and contributed to reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution case?

The Court applied Sections 363, 366 and 376 IPC concerning kidnapping, abduction and rape, and Section 378 Cr.P.C. governing appeals against acquittal

It reiterated that an appellate court possesses power to reappreciate the evidence but must exercise heightened restraint where the accused has been acquitted, since acquittal creates a reinforced or double presumption of innocence.

Under Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, (2007) 4 SCC 415, where two reasonable views are possible, the appellate court should not disturb the acquittal

Babu v. State of Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189, Bannareddy v. State of Karnataka, (2018) 5 SCC 790, and Jayamma v. State of Karnataka, (2021) 6 SCC 213, establish that interference is justified only where the trial court’s view is perverse, legally erroneous, based on a misreading of evidence, or otherwise unsustainable

The Court also relied on Ram Suresh Singh v. Prabhat Singh, (2009) 6 SCC 681 and Jyoti Prakash Rai v. State of Bihar, (2009) 15 SCC 223 regarding the permissible margin of error in medical age determination

The High Court held that the trial court had reasonably evaluated the conflicting age material.

The educational records were inconsistent, while the radiological and medical reports assessed the victim’s age at approximately 16 years; applying the recognised margin of error, the trial court could reasonably conclude that she was not proved to be below the relevant age at the time of occurrence

More importantly, the victim, during cross-examination, denied abduction, confinement and rape and stated that she had left voluntarily; her parents likewise became hostile and did not support the FIR allegations

The medical evidence disclosed no external or internal injuries and no spermatozoa, although such evidence was not treated as independently conclusive

Accused Ubaidurrehman’s alibi was supported by oral and documentary evidence demonstrating his presence in Nepal during the relevant period, and the prosecution evidence did not effectively rebut it

In these circumstances, the contradictions, shifting versions and lack of corroboration created reasonable doubt.

The High Court therefore found the trial court’s view plausible and held that it was neither perverse nor legally erroneous

It held that the trial court had adopted a possible and reasonable view of the evidence, that the prosecution failed to prove the victim’s minority and the alleged offences beyond reasonable doubt, and that the acquittal did not warrant appellate interference

The Government Appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the trial court record was directed to be returned to the concerned court