An acquittal cannot be reversed absent perverse findings compelling an irresistible conclusion of guilt.

The appellant, the victim’s father, challenged the acquittal of Respondent No. 2 of charges under Sections 363, 366A and 376 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that the victim and another girl had been taken away by the accused and another person.

The victim’s father reported the incident on 5 July 2022, three days after the alleged occurrence; the written report did not allege sexual assault.

At trial, the victim testified that the accused had raped her, but the evidence raised disputes about her age, where she had been living and how she came to be missing.

The trial court acquitted Respondent No. 2, finding the prosecution case doubtful.

The father appealed against that acquittal.

1. Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise warranted appellate interference

2. Whether the prosecution evidence established Respondent No. 2’s guilt on the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt

The charges concerned Sections 363, 366A and 376 of the IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.

The judgment also referred to the victim’s statement under Section 164 CrPC and the accused’s examination under Section 313 CrPC.

Applying the settled principles governing appeals against acquittal, the Court stated that an appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court’s findings are perverse and the evidence leads to an irresistible conclusion that the accused is guilty.

No specific precedent is identified in the judgment.

The Court found material weaknesses in the prosecution evidence.

The initial report contained no allegation of sexual violence, and the medical examination disclosed no injury or sign of sexual assault; the doctor assessed the victim’s bone age at 18–20 years.

The birth certificate relied on by the prosecution did not disclose the basis for the recorded date of birth, and the prosecution did not prove the victim’s date of birth through school records.

The Court also noted inconsistencies in the victim’s and her father’s accounts about the victim’s movements, residence and the circumstances in which she went missing.

In light of these evidentiary deficiencies, the Court found no perversity in the trial court’s assessment and no basis to disturb the acquittal.

Finding no merit in the appeal, it dismissed the appeal and directed that a copy of the judgment and the trial court records be sent to the trial court.