Uncorroborated and contradictory testimony of interested witnesses cannot sustain a conviction in an appeal against acquittal.

The prosecutrix (PW-1) alleged that the respondent repeatedly harassed and assaulted her between November 9 and November 24, 2005. Specifically, she alleged that on November 24, 2005, while harvesting paddy, the respondent assaulted her and attempted to outrage her modesty

The respondent was charged under Sections 294, 354, and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

The Trial Court acquitted the respondent on September 21, 2011, finding the prosecution evidence unreliable

The State appealed this acquittal to the High Court

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in its appreciation of evidence by discarding the testimonies of the prosecutrix (PW-1) and her husband (PW-2)

2. Whether the findings of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court were perverse, manifestly erroneous, or wholly unreasonable so as to warrant appellate interference

The court applied Sections 294 (obscene acts/songs), 354 (outraging modesty), and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, and Section 3(1)(xi) of the SC/ST Act

Regarding the scope of appellate review, the court relied on H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka (2023) and Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar v. State of Karnataka (2024), which establish that an appellate court should not overturn an acquittal if the trial court’s view is a "possible view," provided there is no patent perversity

It further noted Sadhu Saran Singh v. State of U.P. (2016) regarding the reinforcement of the presumption of innocence upon acquittal

The Court observed that the independent witness (PW-3) turned hostile and failed to support the prosecution

Upon scrutinizing the remaining witnesses, the Court found that the husband (PW-2) admitted in cross-examination that he did not actually witness the incident, contradicting his earlier testimony and the prosecution's narrative

The Court highlighted a significant lacuna: while the accused allegedly left personal items (watch, muffler) at the scene, the prosecution failed to seize these as evidence or explain their absence

Furthermore, the Court noted an unexplained inordinate delay in lodging the FIR—the incident occurred on November 24, 2005, but information reached the police only on December 3, 2005, with the FIR registered in January 2006

The non-examination of other alleged witnesses (Sarpanch and villagers) further weakened the case

The Court answered that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and since the Trial Court's view was a "possible view," interference was unwarranted

The appeal filed by the State was dismissed, and the judgment of acquittal was affirmed