Appellate interference in acquittal is impermissible if the trial court’s view is legally plausible and reasonable.

The State appealed against the judgment dated 19.10.2022 by the Special Judge, POCSO Act, Betul, which acquitted the respondent (a School Headmaster) of charges under Sections 354 and 506 Part-II of the IPC, Sections 9/10 of the POCSO Act, and various sections of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

The prosecution alleged that the accused engaged in indecent behavior and inappropriate physical contact with several girl students residing in a school hostel.

An inquiry committee report (Ex.P/53) led to the FIR, although no victim or parent lodged a direct complaint despite the police station being adjacent to the hostel.

During the trial, 15 out of 17 victim witnesses turned hostile, alleging their prior statements were coached by others.

1. Whether the trial court erred in granting the benefit of doubt to the accused despite the incriminating testimony of two victims (PW-1 and PW-2).

2. Whether the findings of the trial court were perverse or legally implausible, necessitating interference by the appellate court under Section 378 of the CrPC.

The court applied the standards for appellate review of acquittals under Section 378 of the CrPC, emphasizing that an order of acquittal should not be disturbed unless "perverse" or "wholly unreasonable".

It relied on H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), which dictates that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be followed.

It further cited Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024) and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024), affirming that acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and requires the appellate court to demonstrate patent perversity or error of law to reverse the trial court's decision.

The High Court found the trial court's appreciation of evidence comprehensive and rational. It noted that the prosecution failed to explain why no FIR was lodged by victims or parents immediately, despite the proximity of the police station.

The Court observed that the inquiry committee (Ex.P/53) did not provide the accused an opportunity for defense and that committee members admitted no teachers had complained about the accused's behavior.

Critically, 15 victims (PW-3 to PW-21) turned hostile, claiming their Section 164 CrPC statements were made under duress from hostel staff.

While PW-1 and PW-2 initially supported the prosecution, PW-2 recanted her testimony during cross-examination, and PW-1’s statements were riddled with omissions and contradictions.

Because the testimony lacked specific details regarding the date, time, and place of the incidents, the High Court held that the trial court's doubt was a "legally plausible view".

The High Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal and the criminal appeal itself, affirming the acquittal of the respondent/accused and granting him the benefit of doubt.