An acquittal stands where the trial court’s reasonable assessment is not perverse.

The appellant, a 31-year-old woman, alleged that on 28 May 2021 the accused forced her to travel with him from Village Sadra to Barvada, threatened to kill her and her minor son, and kept her at a farm for about 12 days, where he repeatedly raped and confined her.

After returning, the parties’ community leader attempted to resolve the matter; the appellant subsequently lodged an FIR.

The accused was charged under Sections 363, 344, 376(N) and 506(2) of the IPC.

The Sessions Court acquitted him, finding the appellant’s evidence unreliable in light of her conduct, the nature of the relationship and the delay in reporting.

The appellant, as victim and complainant, appealed under Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Whether the Sessions Court was justified in acquitting the accused, or whether its findings warranted appellate interference?

Whether the appellant’s testimony, considered with the surrounding circumstances, was sufficiently reliable to establish kidnapping, rape and wrongful confinement beyond reasonable doubt?

Section 413 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure) provides for a victim’s appeal against acquittal.

An appellate court may interfere with an acquittal where compelling circumstances show that the judgment is perverse; it must also account for the presumption of innocence, strengthened by acquittal, and avoid interference where the trial court’s view is reasonable.

A victim’s sole testimony may support conviction if reliable and trustworthy; the “sterling witness” standard requires a consistent and unassailable account.

Where the testimony contains material deficiencies and does not inspire confidence, corroboration may be necessary.

The charges in this case were under Sections 363, 344, 376(N) and 506(2) of the IPC.

The High Court considered that the appellant was an adult, travelled with the accused over a substantial distance, stayed with him at the farm for about 12 days, had a mobile phone, and did not report the alleged kidnapping during that period; it also noted the delay in lodging the FIR and the parties’ relationship.

On those circumstances, the Court found that her evidence did not inspire confidence on the allegations of kidnapping, rape and illegal confinement.

It held that the trial court had given sufficient reasons for its assessment and that its acquittal was a reasonable view, not a perverse one warranting appellate intervention.

Finding no basis to interfere, it dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.