In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should only interfere if the trial court's reasoning is perverse, illegal, or ignores major evidence; if the evidence permits two plausible views, the view favouring the accused must be sustained to uphold the presumption of innocence.

1. The present acquittal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/complainant against the judgment of acquittal dated 02.05.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, FTC Special Court ‘POCSO’, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case (POCSO) No.180/2022, whereby the respondent No.2 has been acquitted of the charges under Section 376 (3) of IPC and Section 4 (2) of POCSO Act.

2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant/prosecutrix lodged written report at the police station concerned alleging interalia that respondent/accused contacted her through mobile phone in the month of November 2021. The respondent/accused used to contact her through the mobile phone and say I love you and also asked her to come at her old house to meet him however she refused to meet him however on 05.04.2022 around 11 PM, respondent/accused asked the her to come and meet him near her old house upon which she came there and the respondent/accused took her inside old house and committed the rape with her. Thereafter, the appellant haven't got her periods in the month April 2022 however she got scared so she didn't tell about her periods to her parents. Thereafter the appellant belly started increasing so on 31.08.2022 the her parents took her for treatment at Parivar Seva Kendra, Pandari where the appellant parents got to know that she is pregnant and the fetus was stillbirth (intra uterine death) after 7 months of pregnancy. Therefore, she was admitted at Dr. Bhemrao Ambedkar Hospital and abortion was carried out. Thereafter a case was registered against the accused respondent and he was arrested. After completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record acquitted the respondent No.2 of the aforesaid charges.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned Trial Court is illegal. The prosecution witnesses categorically stated against the accused/respondents, but the learned Trial Court only on minor contradictions and omissions acquitted the respondents. He further submits that the prosecutrix clearly deposed against the accused respondent but the same has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court also ought to have considered that the age of prosecutrix was below 18 years on the date of incident based on the evidence available on record, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly, as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the accused respondent is liable to be convicted. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Prasanta Debnath and another vs State of Tripura, reported in 2026 SCC Online Tri 93, Vijay vs State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in CRA No.660/2008, decided on 27.07.2010 and State of Madhya Pradesh vs Anoop Singh, passed in CRA No.442/2010, decided on 03.07.2015.

4. Learned State counsel supports the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused/respondent but he has wrongly been acquitted by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.

5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 opposes the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant/complainant as well as learned State counsel and