Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
BIBHAS RANJAN DE, J.
Gopal Sardar - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal Anr. - Respondents
C.R.A. (SB) No. 45 of 2023 In CRAN 1 of 2023
Decided On : 14-06-2024
Conviction - Sexual Offences - IPC Section 354B, POCSO Act Section 10 - The court upheld the conviction under IPC and POCSO Act, emphasizing the victim's testimony and the evidentiary standards for sexual assault cases.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for sexually assaulting a minor, based on a complaint by the victim's father, detailing the accused's inappropriate actions and threats towards the victim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the prosecution's case proved beyond reasonable doubt, relying on consistent testimonies from the victim and her family, despite some investigative lapses.
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction under the relevant sections of IPC and POCSO Act, despite the defense's claims of false implication and investigative irregularities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the victim's testimony, corroborated by her family, was credible and sufficient for conviction, and that investigative lapses did not undermine the prosecution's case.
Result: The appeal was dismissed, upholding the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
JUDGMENT :
Bibhas Ranjan De, J.
Preface:-
1. Challenge in this appeal is the judgement and order of conviction dated 01.02.2023 & 02.02.2023 respectively passed by the Ld. Judge in Sessions Trial Case No. 14(07) 2015 arising out of Sessions Case no. 32 (8) 14 and Special Case No. 82/15 wherein the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 354B of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (for short POCSO Act).
2. In view of the guidelines set by the Hon’ble Apex Court Governing this kind of scenarios, I will consciously avoid to divulge into the particulars of the survivor (for short X), witnesses and the Police Station, Hospital, other places including place of occurrence.
3. The appellant has been convicted by the Ld. Trial Judge as under:-
| Particulars of Accused/Appellant | |||
| Section | Sentence | Fine | Sentence in default of fine |
| 10 of POCSO Act | 7 years of rigorous imprisonment | Rs.25,000/- | Six months of rigorous imprisonment |
| 354B of the IPC | 5 years of rigorous imprisonment | Rs.10,000/- | Six months of simple imprisonment |
Background:-
4. The facts as reflected in the judgment of the Trial Judge stand as follows:-
One written complaint made by the father of X on 09.09.2013 was registered at the concerned Police Station under specific FIR dated 09.09.2013 under Section 354B of the IPC.
5. The father of X alleged inter alia that on 08.09.2013 at about 23.00 hours suddenly X came to him and hugged her aunt who was standing next to the father of X trembling in fear. On being asked, X told that the accused (for short A) who is a next door tenant called X in his room and made some sexual gestures. A also showed X some obscene pictures and sexually assaulted her. Father of X also came to know from X that A on previous occasions also committed similar type of acts. On receipt of such news local people got agitated and assaulted A.
6. On the basis of the said complaint Police took up investigation and upon completion of investigation submitted charge sheet under Sections 354B/376 of the IPC against A.
Charges:-
7. Ld. Trial Judge framed charge under Section 354B/376(2) (f) (i) (j) of the IPC read with Section 6 of POCSO Act against A. To which A pleaded not guilty.
Evidence of the Case:-
8. To prove the charge the prosecution side examined as many as seven (7) witnesses which stand as follows:-
| X | as PW1 |
| Father of X | as PW2 |
| Mother of X | as PW3 |
| Aunt of X | as PW4 |
| Medical Officer | as PW5 |
| Recording officer of the concerned P.S. | as PW6 |
| Investigating Officer | as PW7 |
9. In course of evidence a good number of documents were admitted in evidence which are summarized as below:-
A. Prosecution:-
| Sl. No. | Exhibit No. | Description |
| 1. | Exbt.1 | Statement of X recorded under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short Cr.P.C.) |
| 2. | Exbt.1/1 | Signature of PW1 on statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. |
| 3. | Exbt.2 | Doctor’s report |
| 4. | Exbt.2/1 | Signature of PW1 on Doctor’s report |
| 5. | Exbt. 3/1 | Signature of PW2 on the written complaint |
| 6. | Exbt.3/2 | Endorsement of PW6 on written complaint |
| 7. | Exbt. 4 | Formal FIR |
| 8. | Exbt. 5 | Sketch map along with index |
| 9. | Exbt. 6 | Report of Medico legal exam |
| 10. | Exbt. 7 | OPD ticket of A |
10. After completion of recording of evidence, the accused/appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. wherein he pleaded that he was innocent. But, he did not adduce any evidence.
11. The Trial Court relying on the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and other available materials on record opined that the prosecution case was successfully proved beyond any reasonable doubt and accordingly held the accused guilty of c
AI
The court emphasized that the testimony of a minor victim in sexual assault cases must be treated with sensitivity, and minor inconsistencies do not undermine the prosecution's case.
Point of Law - No legal compulsion to look for any other evidence to corroborate the evidence of prosecutrix before recording an order of conviction.
The consistent and corroborated testimony of witnesses, supported by medical evidence, is crucial in establishing guilt in sexual offence cases, and contradictory or inconsistent defenses can weaken ....
The necessity of corroborative evidence in sexual assault cases is critical, and the failure to provide medical evidence raises reasonable doubt, impacting the legality of convictions.
Statutorial presumption u/s 29 and 30 of POCSO Act certainly places a persuasive burden on appellant to show that he does not possess requisite culpable mental state for offence for which he is prose....
The prosecution's burden was not met due to substantial inconsistencies in witness testimonies; thus, a conviction was unjustified.
Point of Law – Kidnapping and abduction – Conviction - victim, who is found to be an unreliable witness - appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt
The competence of child witnesses, scrutiny of hostile witnesses' testimony, and the significance of corroborative evidence and the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act are central legal pri....
The presumption of innocence in favor of the accused and the higher threshold required to rebut the presumption in case of acquittal.
The trial court erred in convicting under both IPC and POCSO Act without sufficient corroborative evidence, violating Section 42 of the POCSO Act regarding sentencing options.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
