Appellate interference after acquittal is limited where evidence proves incapacity to consent and supports conviction for rape.

In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the trial court's view is perverse, unsustainable, or based on ignoring material evidence; the appellate court may still reappreciate evidence and reach its own conclusion where guilt is proved. On the facts, medical evidence established that the victim had low IQ and mild mental retardation and could not understand the nature and consequences of the act, making consent legally ineffective. The accused was also shown to be the biological father of the child born to the victim, and the defence was a total denial. The SC therefore upheld the conviction and found no reason to interfere with the sentence, which was already the minimum prescribed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused on reappreciation of evidence in an appeal against acquittal; (ii) Whether the conviction and sentence under the offences relating to rape and criminal intimidation called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused on reappreciation of evidence in an appeal against acquittal.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate evidence, but interference is warranted only where the trial court view is perverse, demonstrably unsustainable, or based on ignoring material evidence. The presumption of innocence is strengthened by acquittal, yet the first appellate court is not barred from reaching its own conclusion where the evidence establishes guilt. On the evidence, the victim's low IQ, mild mental retardation, and inability to understand the nature and consequences of the act were established through medical evidence. The accused was also shown to be the biological father of the child born to the victim, and the defence was a total denial rather than a case of consent.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal and convicting the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction and sentence under the offences relating to rape and criminal intimidation called for interference.

Analysis: Sexual intercourse with a woman incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of consent falls within the offence of rape, and exploitation of a mentally retarded victim does not warrant leniency. The sentence imposed was already the minimum prescribed, and no special reason existed to reduce it. The ancillary challenge to the sentence therefore did not merit interference.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence did not call for interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was liable to fail, and the conviction and sentence recorded by the High Court were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is permissible only where the trial court's view is perverse or unsustainable; where medical and other evidence proves that the victim was incapable of understanding the nature and consequences of the act, consent is legally ineffective and conviction for rape may be sustained.

---