Glaring inconsistencies between oral testimony and documentary evidence justify maintaining acquittal in criminal appeals.

The appellant (informant) filed a written report alleging that the accused, Pappu, teased his 16-year-old daughter and, on 26.09.2021, attempted to drag her away

The FIR was initially registered under Section 354 IPC and Sections 7/8 of the POCSO Act, but charges were later enhanced to Sections 363 (Kidnapping), 376(2)(n) (Habitual Rape) of the IPC, and Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act

During the trial, the victim (PW-1) alleged she was raped multiple times on 25.09.2021 and 26.09.2021

The Trial Court (Special Judge, POCSO Act, Shahjahanpur) acquitted the accused on 01.12.2025

The appellant challenged the acquittal, arguing that the court failed to appreciate the victim's testimony and medical evidence

1. Whether the Trial Court's judgment of acquittal was palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous, or demonstrably unsustainable so as to warrant interference by the appellate court

2. Whether the prosecution proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in light of significant contradictions between ocular testimony and the initial written report (tahrir)

The Court applied the principles governing appeals against acquittal under Section 413 of the BNSS (corresponding to Section 378 CrPC).

It emphasized that the presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal and should not be disturbed unless the trial court's approach is "patently illegal" or "wholly untenable," as held in Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat

The Court further relied on the "two-view doctrine" established in Kali Ram v. State of H.P. and Basheera Begam v. Mohd. Ibrahim, which dictates that if two reasonable views are possible, the one favorable to the accused must be adopted

Additionally, it upheld the principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot replace legal proof (Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam)

The Court found "glaring inconsistencies" in the prosecution's evidence.

Firstly, the victim (PW-1) provided conflicting dates for the incident and gave contradictory statements regarding her medical examination, denying it occurred in her Section 164 statement despite forensic records

Secondly, the allegation of rape was entirely missing from the initial tahrir submitted by the father (PW-2), even though the victim claimed to have informed him prior to the report

Thirdly, major contradictions existed between PW-1 and PW-2 regarding the time of the incident (night vs. noon) and the mode of transport to the police station (police car vs. bicycle)

Finally, the Court noted that the allegation of the accused forcibly abducting the victim from a house occupied by 20-25 family members was "highly unnatural"

The Court concluded that these discrepancies rendered the prosecution's case unreliable.

The Court affirmed that there was no perversity or illegality in the acquittal and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

The order of acquittal for the charges under Sections 363, 376(2)(n) IPC, and Sections 3/4 POCSO Act was upheld