Leave to appeal against acquittal denied where child victim's testimony was unreliable and tainted by tutoring.

The State filed an application under Section 378(3) of the CrPC seeking leave to appeal against the acquittal of the respondent for offences under Sections 377, 504, 506 of the IPC and Section 3/4 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution alleged that on 09.04.2020, the accused committed an unnatural offence with the informant's seven-year-old son on a terrace, witnessed by the victim's elder brother.

The FIR was lodged six days later on 15.04.2020.

The Trial Court acquitted the accused, noting a delay in the FIR, lack of medical corroboration, non-examination of the eye-witness brother, and a pre-existing rent dispute between the parties.

1. Whether the State established a prima facie case or arguable points warranting the grant of leave to appeal against the judgment of acquittal.

2. Whether the Trial Court’s appreciation of evidence was perverse or suffered from manifest illegality requiring appellate interference.

The court applied Section 378(3) of the CrPC, which mandates that an appeal against acquittal cannot be entertained without the leave of the High Court.

The presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal and interference is only permitted for "substantial and compelling reasons" as established in Ramesh v. State of Haryana and Jafarudheen v. State of Kerala.

At the leave stage, the court must see if a prima facie case or "arguable points" are raised rather than deciding the merits of the acquittal as per State of Maharashtra v. Sujay Mangesh Poyarekar.

Rule of "adverse inference" where the best available evidence (an eyewitness) is withheld by the prosecution.

The Court found that the prosecution failed to provide a prima facie basis to challenge the acquittal. First, the medical evidence conducted seven days post-incident showed no injuries, failing to corroborate the victim's testimony.

The Court noted the significant six-day delay in lodging the FIR, which remained unexplained.

The prosecution’s failure to examine the victim’s elder brother—the sole alleged eyewitness—led to an adverse inference against the State’s version.

Regarding the victim’s testimony (PW2), the Court observed that the child witness "blew hot and cold," admitting in cross-examination that he was not on the terrace during the incident and that the case was maliciously filed due to a rent dispute.

The Court reasoned that the conduct of the informant, who shift premises on the same day the FIR was finally lodged, supported the defense theory of malicious prosecution over rental arrears.

Finding no arguable points or manifest perversity, the High Court refused the prayer for leave to appeal and dismissed the application. The memorandum of appeal was consequently dismissed.