Can presumption of guilt override a man’s right to a fair trial?
The Calcutta High Court criticised the Trial Court for failing to properly analyse evidence and clarified that foundational facts must first be established before shifting the burden upon the accused under POCSO law.
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court, in a judgment dated 22 May 2026 delivered by Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, acquitted a professor who had earlier been convicted under rape and POCSO charges and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
The case started in March 2022 after the elder sister of a minor girl alleged that her sister, who had been staying at a professor’s residence for education, informed her over the phone about repeated sexual assault.
An FIR was registered and the professor was later convicted under rape and POCSO charges and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. However, the High Court later found major contradictions, serious investigative lapses, missing forensic evidence, and unreliable witness testimonies in the prosecution case.
The Court held that before applying the reverse burden under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the prosecution must first establish clear foundational facts through reliable evidence.
While discussing the law, the Court observed:
“Once the foundation of the prosecution case is laid by leading legally admissible evidence, it becomes incumbent on the accused to establish from the evidence on record that he has not committed the offence or to show from the circumstances of a particular case that a man of ordinary prudence would most probably draw an inference of innocence in his favour.”
The High Court clarified that the legal presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act cannot mean that every prosecution story must automatically be accepted as true. The Bench warned that courts cannot “mechanically accept the mere ipse dixit of the prosecution” and blindly approve cases that may be “patently absurd or inherently improbable”.
While examining the evidence, the Court found serious gaps in the investigation. No independent witnesses from the college campus or nearby residential quarters were examined even though the alleged incident took place inside a gated campus with entry records. The Court observed that:
“Had the said register been seized, it would have shown the entry of the victim along with her father on the relevant date and time in the Mac House.”
The Bench also questioned the fairness of the investigation after finding that the investigating officer relied heavily upon the estranged wife and son of the accused despite an old matrimonial dispute and pending Section 498A proceedings. The Court even remarked:
“Was the IO influenced by anybody?”
The High Court further found major defects in the seizure process and noted that several seizure witnesses were never examined before the Trial Court. Calling the recovery process doubtful, the Court observed:
“The veracity of the said seizure list is doubtful.”
Medical evidence also failed to strongly support the prosecution case. Despite allegations of repeated forcible sexual assault, no injuries were found on the victim, and vaginal swabs collected during medical examination were never sent for forensic testing. The judgment recorded:
“Conclusion pending for the report of vaginal swab examination/forensic examination.”
The Court also noticed contradictions in the prosecution’s confinement theory because the girl had attended school outside and had access to the phones of other people. It additionally found the testimony of the accused’s estranged wife unreliable as several serious allegations made by her during trial were never mentioned in her earlier complaint. While discussing this aspect, the Bench observed:
“No self-respecting working woman would tolerate such an adulterous life of her husband.”
After analysing the entire record, the Calcutta High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the foundational facts required under Section 29 of the POCSO Act and held that conviction cannot rest merely on allegations without reliable evidence, proper investigation, and credible corroboration.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involced
| Law / Section | Purpose | Role In This Case |
| Section 376(2)(f) IPC | Punishment for aggravated rape under the old IPC framework | Used for rape allegations against the accused |
| Section 328 IPC | Causing hurt by poison or intoxicating substance | Allegation that medicines were administered to the girl |
| Section 506 IPC | Criminal intimidation or threats | Allegation that the victim was threatened |
| Section 6 POCSO Act | Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor | Main POCSO charge in the case |
| Section 29 POCSO Act | Presumption of guilt against accused once foundational facts are proved | High Court held foundational facts were not properly established |
| Section 498A IPC | Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband | Earlier matrimonial dispute existed between accused and wife |
| Section 164 CrPC | Recording of statement before Magistrate | Victim and witnesses gave statements under this section |
| Section 313 CrPC | Opportunity for accused to explain evidence against him | Accused denied allegations and claimed false implication |
| Section 100 CrPC | Procedure for lawful search and seizure with independent witnesses | Court found seizure process doubtful due to lack of public witnesses |
| Section 27 Indian Evidence Act | Discovery of facts based on accused’s statement | Alleged disclosure statement was not properly proved |
Case Details
- Case Title: Pratap Digal Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.
- Court: Calcutta High Court
- Case Number: CRA (DB) No. 25 OF 2025
- Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:811-DB
- Bench: Justice Arijit Banerjee | Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
- Date of Judgment: 22.05.2026
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Mr. Lord Chatterjee, Adv.; Ms. M. Chakraborty, Adv.
- For De-facto Complainant: Mr. Amit Ranjan Pati, Adv.
- For State: Mr. Joydeep Roy, Adv.; Ms. Baishali Chatterjee, Adv.
Key Takeaways
- Allegations alone should never be treated as proof without reliable evidence and proper investigation.
- Presumption of guilt cannot replace the basic principles of fair trial and due process.
- Missing forensic evidence, contradictory statements, and biased investigation can lead to wrongful prosecution of innocent persons.
- Personal disputes and strained relationships can sometimes influence criminal allegations, making impartial investigation extremely important.
- Criminal justice must protect both genuine victims and innocent accused persons through evidence-based adjudication.
This Could Change Your Case-Get FREE Legal Advice-Click Here!
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised.