Hostile testimony of victim undermines prosecution case despite supporting evidence from hearsay family witnesses in POCSO acquittal.

The State filed an appeal against a February 2023 judgment from the Special Judge (POCSO), Waraseoni, which acquitted the respondent of charges involving the outraging of a minor's modesty

The incident allegedly occurred in July 2020, when the respondent purportedly dragged the victim into a room and molested her while her mother was away

Following an investigation and trial, the lower court found the evidence insufficient for conviction

The State sought leave to appeal, arguing that minor discrepancies in witness testimonies should not have resulted in an acquittal

1. Whether the delay of 39 days in filing the appeal should be condoned

2. Whether the State should be granted leave to appeal the judgment of acquittal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. based on the evidence provided

3. Whether the trial court’s decision to acquit the respondent was perverse or legally implausible given the testimony of the prosecution witnesses

The court applied the statutory requirements for condoning delays and the standards for granting leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure

Indian Penal Code (Sections 354 and 354-K) and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act

H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023), Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), and Mallappa v. State of Karnataka (2024): These cases establish that if a trial court's view is legally plausible, an appellate court cannot overturn an acquittal simply because an alternative view exists.

The High Court observed that the most critical witness, the prosecutrix, turned hostile and explicitly denied that any offence occurred, citing family rivalry as a potential motive for the initial complaint

While family members of the victim supported the prosecution's narrative, the court found their testimonies to be hearsay or secondary, as none were eyewitnesses to the alleged event

Furthermore, the court noted significant contradictions and variations in the parents' statements

Applying the principles from the cited Supreme Court rulings, the court reasoned that the trial court’s decision to acquit was a "possible view" based on the evidence. Since the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt and no patent perversity was found in the lower court's judgment, interference was not warranted

An acquittal will not be disturbed in appeal unless the trial court's findings are found to be perverse, illegal, or completely unsupported by the evidence on record; Consequently, the criminal appeal was dismissed