An acquittal must stand where the trial court’s view is reasonably possible and not perverse.

The informant alleged that on 30 April 2018 the respondent abducted her in a vehicle and raped her at gunpoint.

An FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged on 18 May 2018.

After trial, the Fast Track Court-I, Banka acquitted the respondent, citing, among other matters, the delay in the FIR, discrepancies in the evidence, medical findings, and the circumstances surrounding proposed marriage discussions.

The State appealed against the acquittal under Sections 378(1) and (3) CrPC / Sections 419(1) and (3) BNSS

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was illegal, perverse, or otherwise infirm so as to warrant interference in the State’s appeal

Section 376 IPC governs the charged offence

A prosecutrix’s testimony may, if it inspires confidence, sustain conviction without corroboration; corroboration is a matter of prudence, not a legal requirement, and minor discrepancies alone do not justify rejection of otherwise reliable testimony (*State of H.P. v. Manga Singh*, (2019) 16 SCC 759)

Where a case rests on a sole witness, the court assesses the quality, consistency, and reliability of that testimony (*Rai Sandeep @ Deepu v. State (NCT of Delhi)*, (2012) 8 SCC 21)

In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may review the evidence, but must account for the reinforced presumption of innocence; where two reasonable views are possible, the acquittal should not be disturbed (*Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka*, (2007) 4 SCC 415).

The Court accepted that corroboration is not invariably required and that the absence of injury or spermatozoa is not, by itself, conclusive against sexual assault

It nevertheless assessed the prosecutrix’s evidence alongside the 18-day delay in lodging the FIR, the evidence concerning marriage discussions and a subsequent Panchayati, inconsistencies relating to the vehicle and alleged accomplice, the absence of eyewitness support, and the medical and investigative evidence

Considering the evidence cumulatively, the Court held that the trial court’s doubts and its view that the prosecution had not proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt were reasonably available on the record

The appeal was dismissed at the admission stage, and any pending applications were disposed of