The Calcutta High Court recently acquitted a college professor who was sentenced to 20 years in jail after being found guilty of raping a 16-year-old girl. A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray held that the professor was falsely implicated in the case filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) Act based on the testimony of his estranged wife Rita Soren and their son.
The High Court slammed the police for a botched investigation
The High Court came down heavily on the police for their botched investigation and directed the state to pay a compensation of ₹10 lakh to the victim, who spent 4 years in jail and endured loss of reputation. The High Court noted that there were several discrepancies in the testimony of the victim, and the only supporting evidence was the testimonies of the accused’s wife and son, whose relations with the professor were already strained. The High Court warned against the weaponisation of a serious law, like the POCSO Act, for settling personal scores.
“As the victim’s testimony is full of anomalies and the only supporting evidence comes from ‘star witnesses’ with a documented vendetta (the 498A case), the foundational facts themselves are shaky. A presumption cannot be used to fill a gap left by unreliable or coached evidence,” the High Court said in its order passed on 22nd May.
Disappointed by the police investigation and the conduct of the prosecution in the case, the High Court ordered the Director General of Police to immediately consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against Sub Inspector (SI) Nibedita Koley. The court said that Koley allowed herself to be influenced by biased and unreliable witnesses against the accused Pratap Digal.
The Division Bench also took notice of the fact that the special public prosecutor (SPP) in the POCSO case, advocate Joydeep Mukherjee, had earlier represented Digal’s wife in a case of cruelty (Section 498A) filed by her against Digal. The court said that there was an evident risk of bias on the part of the prosecution, as the SPP had earlier represented the professor’s wife in a case against him. Notably, the professor’s wife was an important witness in the POCSO case.
The Court ordered disciplinary action against the SPP for misconduct
The court further described it as a case of professional misconduct on the part of Mukherjee. It said that Mukherjee should ideally have recused himself from the case, but instead, he used his client (Digal’s wife) and her son’s testimony to frame the professor. The court directed the Chairman of the Bar Council of West Bengal to immediately consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against advocate Mukherjee.
“If the Special Public Prosecutor—acting with a pre-existing antagonistic interest—pushed for a conviction based on a presumption while knowing the evidence was weak, it elevates “professional misconduct” to a malicious prosecution. The conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor in pursuing a conviction despite the apparent conflict of interest has contributed to a grave miscarriage of justice, resulting in the four-year incarceration of an academician,” the Bench said.
The High Court highlighted several loopholes in the case
The POCSO case was registered in 2022 on a complaint made by the sister of the victim. The victim’s sister had alleged that their father had entrusted the accused with the education of the victim, but he had sexual relations with the victim on multiple occasions. She added that the victim tried to escape but could not succeed. The accused was convicted by the trial court in July 2024.
However, the High Court did not agree with the trial court’s decision and pointed out several loopholes in the case. “Most glaringly, a vaginal swab was collected but never sent for forensic examination, and key witnesses were omitted from the chargesheet. Such incompetence puts innocent lives at risk,” the court stated.
The court observed that no cogent and independent evidence was available to prove the victim’s presence and stay at the residence of the accused. The High Court pointed out that the police failed to examine other academicians whose residential quarters were adjacent to the residence of the accused. The court further noted that the search at the residence of the accused was conducted in his absence
It added that the residence of the accused was searched in his absence. Further, it said that the victim’s alleged attempt to flee from there was not supported by any evidence. The Court questioned the police’s excessive reliance on the testimony of the accused’s estranged wife and son.
The court said that a compliance report must be submitted to the Registrar General of the High Court, Calcutta, within 15 days of receiving this judgment.
