Acquittal interference requires substantial reasons; accused's reliance on misrepresented age defeated mens rea, so leave to appeal failed.

Interference with an acquittal is justified only for substantial and compelling reasons, and where two reasonable views are possible the view favouring the accused must prevail. Here, the prosecutrix was found to have accompanied the accused voluntarily and had misrepresented her age as 18, so the accused believed her to be a major. On that factual basis, the Court found no material showing force, coercion, kidnapping by enticement, or sexual assault in the manner required by the charged offences, and held that the necessary mental element was absent. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed and leave to appeal was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave should be granted to challenge the acquittal for offences under the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, and whether the trial court's view that the prosecution failed to prove the necessary ingredients was perverse.

Analysis: The prosecutrix's statement showed that she had accompanied the accused voluntarily and had misrepresented her age to him as 18 years. On that basis, the accused believed her to be major and there was no material showing force, coercion, kidnapping by enticement, or sexual assault in the sense required by the charged offences. Though the Court accepted that the prosecutrix was a minor, it found that the element of mens rea was missing because the accused had acted on the prosecutrix's own misrepresentation. The Court also reiterated that interference with an acquittal is warranted only for substantial and compelling reasons, and that where two reasonable views are possible, the view favouring the accused must prevail.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish grounds for reversing the acquittal or for granting leave to appeal.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal remained undisturbed and the State's leave petition was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: An acquittal should not be interfered with unless substantial and compelling reasons exist, and where the accused acted on the prosecutrix's own misrepresentation and the essential mental element is absent, the prosecution cannot be sustained if a reasonable view supports acquittal.

---