Appellate court cannot interfere with acquittal where trial court's view is plausible and evidence is contradictory.

The State appealed against the acquittal of the respondent, Vipin Meena, by the XVIII Upper Sessions Judge, Bhopal, in SC No. 6/2022.

The prosecution alleged that on June 19, 2021, the minor prosecutrix was molested and threatened by the accused while fetching water.

Following a trial involving seven prosecution witnesses and one defense witness, the trial court acquitted the accused.

The State contended that minor variations in witness statements were trivial and should not have resulted in an acquittal.

1. Whether the trial court’s finding of acquittal was based on a perverse or erroneous appreciation of evidence warranting interference by the appellate court.

2. Whether the prosecution succeeded in proving the charges under Sections 354, 354A, 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and Sections 11/12 of the POCSO Act beyond reasonable doubt despite a delay in the FIR and lack of independent witnesses.

Section 378 of the CrPC regarding appeals against acquittal.

Established judicial principles for appellate interference as summarized in H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024).

If the trial court’s view is a "possible view," the appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal simply because an alternative view exists; interference is only permitted in cases of patent perversity or manifest error.

The Court observed that while the prosecutrix was established to be a minor, the prosecution's case suffered from significant evidentiary gaps.

Witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 arrived only after the incident, making their testimony of the actual event hearsay.

Despite the presence of many people at the site, no independent witnesses were examined.

Crucially, the Court noted a pre-existing dispute where the prosecutrix's cousin had allegedly abducted the accused's sister a day prior, suggesting a motive for false implication.

There was an unexplained delay of 7 hours in lodging the FIR.

The Court found that the trial court’s decision to grant the benefit of doubt was a plausible view based on these inconsistencies and the lack of corroboration.

The application for leave to appeal (IA No. 18436/2022) was dismissed, and consequently, the criminal appeal was dismissed at the admission stage.