KOLKATA: <\/em>The Calcutta High Court<\/a><\/strong>, in a judgment dated 22 May 2026 delivered by Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray<\/strong>, acquitted a professor who had earlier been convicted under rape and POCSO charges<\/strong> and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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\u2019s residence for education, informed her over the phone about repeated sexual assault.<\/p>\n\n\n\n An FIR <\/a>was registered and the professor was later convicted under rape and POCSO charges and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment<\/strong>. However, the High Court later found major contradictions, serious investigative lapses, missing forensic evidence, and unreliable witness testimonies<\/strong> in the prosecution case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court held that before applying the reverse burden under Section 29 of the POCSO Act<\/strong>, the prosecution must first establish clear foundational facts through reliable evidence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While discussing the law, the Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cOnce 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court clarified that the legal presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act<\/strong> cannot mean that every prosecution story must automatically be accepted as true. The Bench warned that courts cannot \u201cmechanically accept the mere ipse dixit of the prosecution\u201d <\/em><\/strong>and blindly approve cases that may be \u201cpatently absurd or inherently improbable\u201d.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n While examining the evidence, the Court found serious gaps in the investigation. No independent witnesses<\/strong> 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cHad 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.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> despite an old matrimonial dispute and pending Section 498A proceedings<\/strong>. The Court even remarked:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWas the IO influenced by anybody?\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong>, the Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe veracity of the said seizure list is doubtful.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> were never sent for forensic testing. The judgment recorded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cConclusion pending for the report of vaginal swab examination\/forensic examination.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court also noticed contradictions in the prosecution\u2019s confinement theory<\/strong> because the girl had attended school outside and had access to the phones of other people. It additionally found the testimony of the accused\u2019s estranged wife unreliable as several serious allegations made by her during trial were never mentioned in her earlier complaint<\/strong>. While discussing this aspect, the Bench observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNo self-respecting working woman would tolerate such an adulterous life of her husband.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong> and held that conviction cannot rest merely on allegations<\/strong> without reliable evidence, proper investigation, and credible corroboration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Sections Involced<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Purpose<\/strong><\/td> Role In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 376(2)(f) IPC<\/strong><\/td> Punishment for aggravated rape under the old IPC framework<\/td> Used for rape allegations against the accused<\/td><\/tr> Section 328 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Causing hurt by poison or intoxicating substance<\/td> Allegation that medicines were administered to the girl<\/td><\/tr> Section 506 IPC<\/strong><\/td> Criminal intimidation or threats<\/td> Allegation that the victim was threatened<\/td><\/tr> Section 6 POCSO Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a minor<\/td> Main POCSO charge in the case<\/td><\/tr> Section 29 POCSO Act<\/strong><\/td> Presumption of guilt against accused once foundational facts are proved<\/td> High Court held foundational facts were not properly established<\/td><\/tr> Section 498A IPC<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Cruelty by husband or relatives of husband<\/td> Earlier matrimonial dispute existed between accused and wife<\/td><\/tr> Section 164 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Recording of statement before Magistrate<\/td> Victim and witnesses gave statements under this section<\/td><\/tr> Section 313 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Opportunity for accused to explain evidence against him<\/td> Accused denied allegations and claimed false implication<\/td><\/tr> Section 100 CrPC<\/strong><\/td> Procedure for lawful search and seizure with independent witnesses<\/td> Court found seizure process doubtful due to lack of public witnesses<\/td><\/tr> Section 27 Indian Evidence Act<\/a><\/strong><\/td> Discovery of facts based on accused\u2019s statement<\/td> Alleged disclosure statement was not properly proved<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n