Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Cal) 969

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Prasenjit Biswas, J.
Rasomoy Biswas - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal And Anrs.- Respondents
C.R.A. 394 of 2017
Decided On : 25-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Arnab Chatterjee, Mr. Anisur Rahman, Mr. Dhanasree Biswas. Ms. Poulami Bose.
For the Respondent: Mr. Partha Pratim Das, Mrs. Manasi Roy.

The court underscored that convictions must rest on reliable evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, emphasizing procedural irregularities and contradictions in testimonies detrimental to the prosecution's case.

Headnote:(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 8 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 447, 506, 34 - Conviction for sexual assault - The appellant was convicted based on the victim's testimony, which the defense argued was inconsistent and influenced by family members. There were significant contradictions between witnesses which weakened the prosecution's case. The credibility of the FIR lodged was questioned due to unexplained delays and contradictions among witnesses. (Paras 2, 9, 10, 13, 63)

(B) Criminal Law - Presumption of innocence - It was emphasized that the prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and mere allegations cannot substitute for reliable evidence. The court found reasonable doubt sufficient to reverse the conviction. (Paras 29, 25)

(C) Criminal Procedure - Examination of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. - The court noted that the examination was not conducted properly, which prejudiced the accused's right to defend. (Paras 65, 66)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was charged with sexual assault on a minor, with the alleged incident occurring on January 24, 2015. The victim's family delayed reporting the matter, leading to procedural inconsistencies and questions of motive. (Paras 4, 11)

Findings of Court:
Due to substantial inconsistencies in testimonies and the prosecution's failure to establish the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the court found the conviction unsustainable. (Paras 68, 69)

Issues: The main issues included the reliability of the victim's testimony, the propriety of the FIR, contradictions among witnesses, and the examination process of the accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the prosecution failed to provide credible evidence to support conviction, compounded by procedural irregularities and the presence of reasonable doubt regarding the case's veracity. (Paras 27, 31)

Result: The appeal is allowed; the conviction is overturned, and the appellant is set at liberty. (Paras 70, 71)

Table of Content
1. case introduction and background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. overview of prosecution's case. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
3. defense challenges credibility of prosecution witnesses. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. highlighting contradictions in witness testimonies. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17)
5. detailed analysis of evidence supporting prosecution. (Para 18 , 19 , 20)
6. state's case presented to court. (Para 21 , 22)
7. discussion of legal principles and presumptions under pocso act. (Para 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)
8. analysis of victim's testimony and its implications. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34)
9. assessment of credibility of key prosecution witnesses. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39)
10. contradictions affecting prosecution's credibility. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43)
11. impact of independent witnesses on credibility. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47)
12. variances in testimonies affecting reliability. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
13. medical evidence and its inconsistencies. (Para 54 , 55 , 56)
14. importance of corroborating evidence. (Para 57 , 58 , 59)
15. role of independent testimony in prosecution case. (Para 60 , 61 , 62)
16. unexplained delay in fir undermining case. (Para 63 , 64)
17. defective examination under section 313 cr.p.c. (Para 65 , 66 , 67)
18. final judgment and order. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74)

JUDGMENT :

Prasenjit Biswas, J.

1. The instant appeal has been preferred at the behest of the appellant challenging the impugned judgment and order of conviction dated 03.05.2017 and 04.05.2017 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 2nd Court, Krishnagar, Nadia in connection with Sessions Trial No. IX(VIII) of 2016 arising out of Sessions Case No. 07(01) of 2015(Spl).

2. By passing the impugned judgment this appellant was found guilty for commission of offence punishable under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 along with a fine of Rs. 25000/-, out of which 80% amount is to be paid to the victim as compensation under Section 357 Cr.P.C. and in default of payment, this accused shall have to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

3. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said impugned judgment and order of conviction, the present appeal is filed by the present appellant.

4. In short, the narrative advanced by the prosecution may be stated as:

“The instant case was started on the basis of a complaint lodged by the defacto complainant (grandfather of the victim) stating, inter alia, that the incident of sexual assault upon the victim took place on 24.01.2015 at about 7 P.M. in the evening. This complainant was intimated about such fact by the mother of the victim on the next day morning. Thereafter, he lodged the FIR against this appellant along with other accused persons. This defacto complainant intimated about such incident to the father of the appellant but, at about 12 noon on 25.01.2015, the father of the appellant and others came to the house of the defacto complainant armed with deadly weapons and assaulted them. It is stated in the written complaint that this appellant on 24.01.2015 at about 7 P.M. on the date of Saraswati Puja took the victim child to a “lambu” orchard and he removed her pant and kissed on her face and also pressed several parts of her body. The victim informed the matter to her mother. Over that issue the instant case was filed. On the basis of such written complaint a case being Dhantala P.S. Case No. 46/15 dated 25.01.2015 under Section 447 /506/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012 has been started against all the accused persons including this appellant.”

5. After completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by the prosecuting agency against the accused persons under Section 447 /506/34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from the Sexual Offences Act, 2012. The Trial Court framed the charge under Secti