Appellate courts must not disturb acquittal absent perversity or an irresistible finding of guilt.

The appellant-victim alleged that the accused had maintained an intimate relationship with her for several years and had established sexual relations with her on the promise of marriage.

She submitted a written information on 9 April 2022, leading to registration of Sahiyara P.S. Case No. 47 of 2022 under Sections 376 and 506 IPC.

The police subsequently filed a chargesheet under Sections 376 and 504 IPC, and charges were framed under Sections 376, 504 and 506 IPC.

The prosecution examined seven witnesses, including the victim, her relatives, two doctors and the investigating officer; the accused adduced no defence evidence and denied the allegations under Section 313 CrPC.

The trial court acquitted the accused, holding that the victim was a major, had maintained a consensual relationship with him over a prolonged period, and that the prosecution failed to establish consent obtained by coercion or misconception of fact.

The victim challenged the acquittal under the proviso to Section 413 BNSS.

Whether the evidence established that the victim’s consent to the sexual relationship was obtained under coercion or misconception of fact so as to constitute rape under Section 376 IPC?

Whether the prosecution proved the essential ingredients of the offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC beyond reasonable doubt?

Whether the trial court’s acquittal was perverse or otherwise warranted interference in an appeal against acquittal?

The Court applied Section 376 IPC, requiring proof that the sexual act was committed without valid consent or pursuant to consent vitiated by coercion or misconception of fact.

It applied the principle that a promise to marry does not, by itself, establish rape where the relationship was prolonged and consensual and the alleged misconception was not proximate to the sexual act.

The Court relied on XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 3431 of 2023, reported in 2024 (3) SCC 496; Om Prakash Mishra v. State of Bihar, 2018 SCC OnLine Pat 507; Deelip Singh @ Dilip Kumar v. State of Bihar, AIR 2005 SC 203; and Pradeep Kumar @ Pradeep Kumar Verma v. State of Bihar, (2007) 7 SCC 413, concerning consent and misconception of fact.

Sections 504 and 506 IPC require proof respectively of intentional insult likely to provoke breach of peace and criminal intimidation; the prosecution must establish the material particulars and circumstances of those offences.

In an appeal against acquittal, appellate interference is justified only where the acquittal is perverse or the evidence leads to an irresistible conclusion of guilt; a reasonable view favouring the accused must not be disturbed.

The Court found that the victim was an adult and had maintained the relationship with the accused over an extended period, including periods of approximately five years and thereafter two years.

She had not complained during the period of the relationship, and the evidence indicated that the relationship occurred with her knowledge and participation.

The evidence of the victim’s sister showed that she was major when she came in contact with the accused, while the medical evidence placed her age above 22 years.

The Court also noted the absence of supporting material regarding the alleged panchayati, inconsistencies and omissions in the evidence, the alleged consensual abortion, and the medical opinion that it was difficult to determine whether rape had occurred.

These circumstances did not establish that the victim’s consent was vitiated by a legally relevant misconception of fact.

As to Sections 504 and 506 IPC, neither the victim nor the other witnesses specified the date, place or particulars of any insulting or threatening conduct capable of satisfying the statutory requirements.

On reappraisal of the evidence, the High Court concluded that the trial court had adopted a reasonable view supported by the record and that its findings were not perverse.

The trial court’s acquittal was found to be a reasonable and non-perverse view of the evidence.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, the judgment of acquittal dated 23 January 2025 was affirmed, and the trial court record was directed to be returned to the concerned court.