An appellate court should not disturb an acquittal unless clear evidence shows the trial court’s conclusions were perverse or unsupported by credible evidence.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 376, 323 - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Accused acquitted of charges due to inconsistencies in victim's testimony and lack of credible evidence - Court emphasized that the victim's statement undermined the prosecution case, stating, "nothing was happened with her" - The trial court’s decision was upheld as a "possible view". (Paras 10, 11, 12, 16)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 378 - Principles governing appeals against acquittal - Outlined requirements for interference with trial court's acquittal: significant legal misapprehensions or grave miscarriages of justice must be present - The court reiterated presumption of innocence and weightage to trial court's findings. (Paras 14, 15, 18)

Facts of the case:
A minor's mother reported that the respondent had committed rape; however, the victim later recanted, alleging pressure from her family to implicate the accused. The trial court found no supporting evidence.

Findings of Court:
Trial court acquitted the accused due to lack of evidence and stated discrepancies in witness testimonies; notably, the victim’s own statements did not corroborate the charges.

Issues: The main issues included the evidentiary sufficiency to support charges of sexual assault and witness credibility.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the essential requirement of credible evidence for conviction and found no grounds for overruling the trial court's acquittal decision, stating that legal review must respect trial court's conclusions in absence of grave errors.

Result: The government appeal is dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.

Order on Criminal Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. NIL of 2025.

Heard Mr. Rahul Asthana, learned AGA appearing for the State.

A delay of 103 days has been reported.

Perused the affidavit in support of the delay condonation application, which in our opinion is satisfactorily explained.

The application is allowed.

Order on Leave to Appeal Application No. Nil of 2025.

Heard Mr. Rahul Asthana, learned AGA appearing for the appellant-State of UP and perused the record.

Present government appeal has been preferred against the judgement and order dated 6.2.2025 passed by the learned Special Judge (POCSO Act), Kasganj in Sessions Trials No. 354 of 2019, State of U.P. Versus Ajeet and others, (arising out of Case Crime No. 113 of 2019), under Sections 376, 323 IPC and Section ¾ POCSO Act, Police Station Amaopur, District Kasganj.

Factual matrix of the case is that on 29.07.2019 at about 1.30 P.M. informant’s minor daughter aged about 16 years went from home to maize field to defecate. On reaching the maize field, accused Ajeet arrived there and caught hold the informant’s daughter and established physical relation with her and also beaten her. It is also narrated that this incident was witnessed by Prem Pal, Subhash, Sunil and Santosh. It is also mentioned that at the time of alleged incident informant was present at Etah District to look after her mother, but when she back to home her victim daughter told the whole incident to her. Thereafter, informant alongwith her victim daughter went to police station, where she presented a written tahreer, on that basis, the first information report has been lodged against the accused Respondent-Ajeet on 29.07.2019 at 13.30 hrs.

During investigation, Investigating Officer visited the place of occurrence and prepared the site plan and recorded the statement of the witnesses and after collecting the evidence against the accused- respondent submitted a police report, under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C before the Court concerned. Charge for the aforesaid offences was framed and read over to accused respondent who denied the prosecution allegation and claim to be tried.

In support of prosecution case, witnesses PW-1 Victim, PW-2 Smt. Umesha, PW-3 Ashok and PW-4 Dr. Love Kumar Chhatwal, PW-5 HC 294 Mridul Pratap Singh, PW- 6 Dr. Sandesh Aarekh, PW-7 Inspector Virendra Singh Indaulia, PW-8 Prempal, PW-9 Atendra, PW-10 Sunil, PW- 11 Subhash, PW-12 Mordhawaj Singh and PW-13, Dr. Khalid Salman were produced and examined before the Court below.

The judgement of the acquittal passed by the learned trial Court on the ground that the victim was stated to be about 18 to 21 years of her age at the time of alleged incident i.e. on 29.07.2019 and allegation was that accused person committed rape on her and also beaten. Incident was witnesses by Prem Pal, Subhash, Sunil and Santosh. Prem Pal is examined as PW-8 who has not uttered single words in respect of commission of rape by the accused and turned hostile. Another witness Subhash- PW-11 who has been shown as an eye witness in the first information report uttered in his examination- in-chief that the time of alleged incident, he himself did not go to the field and he had not seen the occurrence. He also turned hostile. Another witness of fact Sunil, PW- 10 has stated that he has not seen the occurrence of the rape. Names of remaining witnesses of the fact are Atendra PW-9, Subhash PW-11, Mordhwaj, PW-12, who has not been mentioned in the first information report, but they were examined who has given the only statement to the effect that they have seen the accused Ajeet when he was running away from the field. Learned trial Court further found that there is a evidence of a star witnesses i.e. victim PW-1 and she stated that nothing was happened with her. She also stated in her cross- examination that accused Ajeet did not ravish her and she clarified that whatever she told to Investigating Officer that was on the instance of her mother.