KOLKATA: <\/em>The Calcutta High Court<\/a><\/strong>, through Justice Debangsu Basak<\/strong> along with Justice Biswaroop Chowdhury<\/strong>, overturned the conviction of a man who was earlier sentenced to life imprisonment under the POCSO Act<\/a><\/strong>. The court closely examined the evidence and found major gaps in the prosecution\u2019s case<\/strong>, ultimately giving the benefit of doubt<\/strong> to the accused.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The case was based on allegations that the victim, a school-going minor<\/strong>, 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<\/a>. However, the court found this version difficult to accept in the absence of strong supporting evidence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The defence argued that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt<\/strong>. It was highlighted that the alleged incident took place at around 10 AM<\/strong> on a school day, on a road used by students and the public. Despite this, no independent witness<\/strong> was produced to support the claim that the victim was forcibly taken away.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The court took serious note of this gap, observing that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cIt is inconceivable that an incident of such nature, occurring at about 10\u2019O 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Another major issue was the medical evidence<\/strong>. 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 \u201cnot sure as to whether the victim was sexually assaulted or not.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> There were also no injuries found on the victim\u2019s body or private parts<\/strong>, which further weakened the prosecution\u2019s case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While the victim stated that she was dragged for about 500 meters<\/strong> and had raised alarm, the absence of witnesses and lack of medical support created serious doubts<\/strong>. The court emphasized that when such doubts arise, they must be considered carefully.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The judges noted that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cProsecution did not produce any independent witness who saw the incident,\u201d<\/em><\/strong> which raised questions about the reliability of the allegations. They further stated that \u201cthis raises sufficient doubt as to the veracity of the claim of the victim.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The court also stressed that medical evidence becomes important when the victim\u2019s version is not supported by other evidence<\/strong>. In this case, since the testimony was not corroborated and the medical findings were inconclusive<\/strong>, the prosecution\u2019s case failed to meet the required standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Finally, the court reiterated the basic principle of criminal law that \u201creasonable doubt, if any raised, should benefit the accused.\u201d<\/em><\/strong> Applying this principle, the judges concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result, the High Court set aside the earlier conviction and life sentence<\/strong>, and ordered the immediate release<\/strong> of the accused, subject to legal formalities. The judgment reinforces that conviction cannot be based on assumptions<\/strong>, and strong, reliable evidence is necessary before taking away a person\u2019s liberty.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> How Applied in This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 4, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Punishes penetrative sexual assault on a minor<\/td> Trial court convicted the accused under this section and awarded life imprisonment<\/td><\/tr> Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code<\/strong><\/td> Allows accused to explain evidence against him<\/td> Accused denied allegations during examination<\/td><\/tr> Section 164, Criminal Procedure Code<\/strong><\/td> Recording of victim\u2019s statement before Magistrate<\/td> Victim\u2019s statement recorded and used as evidence<\/td><\/tr> Section 437A, Criminal Procedure Code<\/strong><\/td> Bond for appearance after acquittal<\/td> Court directed accused to furnish bond after acquittal<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeawys<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n