Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Saswata Gopal Mukherjee, Ld. P.P., Mr. Sandip Chakraborty, Mr. Saryati Datta
For the Respondent: Mr. Dipanjan Dutt ...For the de facto complainant/victim

The judgment establishes that in cases involving allegations of sexual offences under the relevant Act, the evidence of the victim is of paramount importance and must be scrutinized carefully to determine if it inspires confidence regarding the involvement of sexual intent. The Court emphasizes that the inference of sexual intent from physical contact or touch should be based on the circumstances and the nature of the act, rather than solely on the act itself.

Furthermore, the Court clarifies that a physical act involving contact, such as pushing or causing a fall, does not automatically constitute an offence unless it is motivated by sexual intent. The Court also highlights that the perception of the victim and the circumstances in which the act occurred are critical in assessing whether the act qualifies as an offence under the relevant provisions.

Importantly, the judgment underscores that the absence of gestures, overacts, or overt sexual overtures in the victim’s testimony can lead to the conclusion that the act does not meet the criteria for sexual intent. As a result, if the evidence does not convincingly establish sexual intent, the accused's conviction cannot be sustained, and the benefit of doubt should be extended in favour of the accused.

The Court also notes that the prosecution must prove the presence of sexual intent beyond reasonable doubt, and mere physical contact or physical acts without clear evidence of sexual motivation do not suffice to uphold a conviction under the specific provisions of the Act.

Finally, the judgment concludes with the acquittal of the accused, indicating that the evidence was insufficient to establish the requisite sexual intent to warrant a conviction under the relevant provisions of the law.