Acquittal interference and reliable prosecutrix testimony can sustain conviction for attempt to commit rape when corroborated by material circumstances.

Interference with an acquittal is permissible where the trial court's view is unreasonable, rests on misappreciation of evidence, or ignores material circumstances; two possible views do not bar reversal. A prosecutrix's testimony, if found reliable, can by itself sustain a conviction for attempt to commit rape, and must be read as a whole rather than by isolating an isolated answer from cross-examination. Here, the prosecutrix's account of forcible sexual assault was found truthful, medical evidence did not discredit it, and surrounding circumstances such as immediate disclosure, absence from school, and forensic semen evidence corroborated her version. The conviction was sustained and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge and convicting the accused; (ii) whether the prosecutrix's evidence was trustworthy and could safely sustain the conviction for attempt to commit rape; (iii) whether the surrounding circumstances provided corroboration for the prosecutrix's version.

Issue (i): whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the acquittal recorded by the Sessions Judge and convicting the accused.

Analysis: An appellate court may reassess the entire evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but interference is warranted where the trial court's view is unreasonable, based on misappreciation of evidence, or ignores material circumstances. Two plausible views do not justify substitution of the appellate court's view for that of the trial court; however, where the acquittal rests on undue reliance on minor discrepancies and disregard of material evidence, reversal is permissible.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in interfering with the acquittal and restoring a conviction on the evidence.

Issue (ii): whether the prosecutrix's evidence was trustworthy and could safely sustain the conviction for attempt to commit rape.

Analysis: The evidence of a prosecutrix, if found reliable, can form the sole basis of conviction. Her statement must be read as a whole and not by isolating a stray sentence from cross-examination. Here, the prosecutrix consistently described forcible sexual assault, attempted penetration, and the act going beyond mere preparation. The medical evidence did not conclusively negate her version, and the inconsistency relied upon by the defence did not destroy her credibility.

Conclusion: The prosecutrix was a truthful witness and her evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Issue (iii): whether the surrounding circumstances provided corroboration for the prosecutrix's version.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the prosecutrix and the accused were absent from school during the relevant period, the prosecutrix made an immediate disclosure to her mother, and semen was found on her salwar on forensic examination. These circumstances, taken together, supported the prosecutrix's account and reinforced its reliability.

Conclusion: The surrounding circumstances corroborated the prosecutrix's version.

Final Conclusion: The conviction for attempt to commit rape was sustained and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the acquittal is based on an unreasonable appreciation of evidence, and a truthful prosecutrix's testimony, supported by material corroborative circumstances, can sustain a conviction for attempt to commit rape even without direct proof of completed rape.

---