Appeal against acquittal requires perversity or manifest error; consensual facts and vague allegations justified no interference.

Appellate interference with an acquittal is limited to compelling and substantial reasons, and a conviction cannot be restored unless the trial court's view is perverse, manifestly erroneous, or unsupported by evidence. The accused continues to benefit from the reinforced presumption of innocence, and where two reasonable views are possible, the view favouring the accused prevails. On the facts, the relationship between the complainant and the accused was treated as consensual, the rape allegation was not supported by the proved material, and the allegations of assault, abuse, and threats were found vague and unparticularised. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference with the order of acquittal was warranted on the ground that the prosecution evidence established the alleged offences.

Analysis: The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited, and the appellate court may disturb an acquittal only for compelling and substantial reasons where the trial court's view is perverse, manifestly erroneous, or unsupported by the evidence. The accused benefits from the presumption of innocence, which stands reinforced by the acquittal, and if two reasonable views are possible, the one favouring the accused must prevail. On the evidence, the relationship between the prosecutrix and the accused was treated as consensual, the material did not support the allegation of rape on the facts proved, and the allegations of assault, abuse, and threats were found to be vague and lacking particulars. The trial court had appreciated the evidence properly and no material infirmity, perversity, or miscarriage of justice was shown.

Conclusion: Interference with the acquittal was not warranted, and the challenge to the acquittal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, reversal is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse or unsustainable and not where the evidence admits of a reasonable view in favour of the accused.

---