The Calcutta High Court highlighted inconsistencies in a POCSO case where the alleged incident took place during active public hours.
Can a story of a daylight incident survive in court when no one from the public comes forward to support it?
KOLKATA: The Calcutta High Court, through Justice Debangsu Basak along with Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury, overturned the conviction of a man who was earlier sentenced to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act. The court closely examined the evidence and found major gaps in the prosecution’s case, ultimately giving the benefit of doubt to the accused.
The case was based on allegations that the victim, a school-going minor, was stopped on her way to school and sexually assaulted. According to the prosecution, the accused dragged her from a public road into a forest area and committed rape. However, the court found this version difficult to accept in the absence of strong supporting evidence.
The defence argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. It was highlighted that the alleged incident took place at around 10 AM on a school day, on a road used by students and the public. Despite this, no independent witness was produced to support the claim that the victim was forcibly taken away.
The court took serious note of this gap, observing that:
“It is inconceivable that an incident of such nature, occurring at about 10’O clock in the morning on a school day will go unnoticed by any student traversing such road or by any members of the public or parents or students using such road to go to school.”
Another major issue was the medical evidence. The doctor who examined the victim clearly stated that he could not confirm whether any sexual assault had taken place. The court recorded that the doctor was “not sure as to whether the victim was sexually assaulted or not.” There were also no injuries found on the victim’s body or private parts, which further weakened the prosecution’s case.
While the victim stated that she was dragged for about 500 meters and had raised alarm, the absence of witnesses and lack of medical support created serious doubts. The court emphasized that when such doubts arise, they must be considered carefully.
The judges noted that:
“Prosecution did not produce any independent witness who saw the incident,” which raised questions about the reliability of the allegations. They further stated that “this raises sufficient doubt as to the veracity of the claim of the victim.”
The court also stressed that medical evidence becomes important when the victim’s version is not supported by other evidence. In this case, since the testimony was not corroborated and the medical findings were inconclusive, the prosecution’s case failed to meet the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Finally, the court reiterated the basic principle of criminal law that “reasonable doubt, if any raised, should benefit the accused.” Applying this principle, the judges concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.
As a result, the High Court set aside the earlier conviction and life sentence, and ordered the immediate release of the accused, subject to legal formalities. The judgment reinforces that conviction cannot be based on assumptions, and strong, reliable evidence is necessary before taking away a person’s liberty.
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | How Applied in This Case |
| Section 4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 | Punishes penetrative sexual assault on a minor | Trial court convicted the accused under this section and awarded life imprisonment |
| Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code | Allows accused to explain evidence against him | Accused denied allegations during examination |
| Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code | Recording of victim’s statement before Magistrate | Victim’s statement recorded and used as evidence |
| Section 437A, Criminal Procedure Code | Bond for appearance after acquittal | Court directed accused to furnish bond after acquittal |
Case Details
- Case Title: Niren Barman vs The State of West Bengal
- Court: Calcutta High Court (Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri)
- Case Number: CRA (DB)/16/2022
- Date of Judgment: 25 March 2026
- Bench: Justice Debangsu Basak & Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury
- Counsels:
- For Appellant: Mr. Satarudriya Mukherjee, Advocate, Ms. Tannu Agarwal, Advocate, Mr. Debajit Kundu, Advocate
- For State: Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. A.P.P, Dr. Arjun Chowdhury, Advocate
Key Takeawys
- A man can be sentenced to life imprisonment even when the evidence is weak, showing how easily serious criminal charges can destroy a life.
- Allegations alone are often treated as sufficient at the initial stage, while actual proof and scrutiny come much later.
- Lack of independent witnesses and weak medical evidence still do not prevent prolonged trials and severe punishment at lower levels.
- The burden of fighting the system falls entirely on the accused, who must prove his innocence despite gaps in the prosecution’s story.
- The principle of “benefit of doubt” ultimately protects liberty, but only after years of legal, social, and financial damage have already been done.
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.