Appellate court shall not interfere with acquittal where trial court’s view is legally plausible.

The State appealed against the judgment dated March 16, 2023, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), Sehore, which acquitted the respondent of charges under Sections 363, 354, 506 Part-II of the IPC and Section 7/8 of the POCSO Act

The prosecution alleged that on May 31, 2020, the accused forcibly took the 12-year-old victim on a motorcycle under the pretext of a 'Kanya Bhojan' (ritual meal), led her toward a forest, and molested her

The Trial Court acquitted the accused after finding material contradictions and a lack of evidence regarding criminal intent

1. Whether the Trial Court’s findings regarding the acquittal of the accused were perverse, erroneous, or against the weight of evidence

2. Whether the testimony of the prosecutrix and prosecution witnesses was sufficiently reliable to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt despite admissions of tutoring and inter-party enmity

The Court applied Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. governing appeals against acquittal

The principle that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal, and an appellate court should not interfere unless the trial court's view is "perverse" or "legally implausible" (H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka; Mallappa v. State of Karnataka)

Sections 363 (Kidnapping), 354 (Assault to outrage modesty), and 506 (Criminal Intimidation) of the IPC, alongside Sections 7 and 8 of the POCSO Act

The High Court observed that while the victim was a minor, her testimony was compromised by an admission that she was tutored by an advocate

The Court noted that the incident allegedly occurred on a public thoroughfare, yet the victim raised no alarm

Critically, the victim admitted the accused treated her as a daughter and took her for a ritual meal, negating mens rea

The Court found the informant (PW-1) was an "interested witness" due to existing financial enmity with the accused

Discrepancies between the victim's description of the scene ("forest") and the informant's description ("hilly area") further weakened the case

The testimonies of the victim's brother (PW-6) and sister (PW-7) did not support the abduction theory, with PW-6 stating the accused only held the victim's hand, a version binding on the prosecution as the witness was not declared hostile

Following the mandate that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be followed, the High Court declined to interfere with the acquittal and dismissed the appeal