Back
2026 Supreme(Cal) 11
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
ANANYA BANDYOPADHYAY, J.
Pravakar Sardar - Appellant
Vs.
The State of West Bengal - Respondent
C.R.A. 74 of 1996
Decided On : 22-05-2026
Important Points
Subject
Criminal Law - Sexual Offences
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Evaluation of Victim Testimony - While a conviction may be sustained on the basis of a lone testimony if it is intrinsically reliable, if such testimony is fraught with material inconsistencies or improbabilities, the court requires corroboration from independent evidence. (Para 51, 57)
(C) Burden of Proof - Criminal jurisprudence dictates that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute for legal proof. The defence does not have to disprove the case beyond reasonable doubt; it is sufficient if the evidence creates a reasonable possibility consistent with the innocence of the accused. (Para 59, 64)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for sexual assault and robbery. The prosecution alleged that the victim was assaulted and robbed while walking to her village. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the victim and certain local witnesses. The defence challenged the consistency of the victim's narrative, the lack of corroborating medical evidence, and the existence of a prior land dispute between the parties as the basis for a false accusation.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the medical evidence failed to substantiate the allegation of violent assault, as there were no genital injuries noted despite the claims of the victim. The court further observed that the victim's testimony lacked consistency regarding material facts, and the prosecution failed to establish the sequence of events clearly.
Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence provided was sufficient to uphold a conviction for sexual assault and robbery, and whether the prosecution successfully met the threshold of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that when the core testimony of the prosecution is marked by uncertainty and remains unsupported by medical or forensic evidence in a case of alleged forceful assault, it does not meet the necessary standard for conviction. The court held that the benefit of doubt must be extended when the evidence fails to exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence.
Result: Appeal allowed; judgment of conviction and sentence set aside.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Kalyan Kumar Bhattacharyya
For the State : Mr. Avishek Sinha
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural background and prosecution case initiation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. appellant's challenge based on lack of medical injury and procedural delay. (Para 6) |
| 3. state arguments asserting reliability of prosecutrix testimony and corroborate evidence. (Para 7) |
| 4. judicial assessment of witness testimonies and narrative consistency. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. evaluation of medical reports and police investigation records. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. review of defence contention regarding motive and previous land disputes. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. appellate court reviewing appellant's challenge to medical and procedural evidence. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 8. appellate assessment of state's justification for the conviction. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 9. failure of prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to evidentiary gaps. (Para 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 10. acquittal due to absence of proof and benefit of doubt. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71) |
Judgment :
Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.
1. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.02.1996 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Bankura in Sessions Trial No.6(6)1993 arising out of Sessions Case No.1(12)1992 convicting the appellant under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 1 year.
2. The prosecution case precisely stated that the victim girl returning from Calcutta by bus on 13.09.91 to her village Gopalpur and alighted at Kotulpur, and proceeded towards her village at Gopalpur. She went to the Tea-stall of one Jatai Koley and inquired for her co-villager of Gopalpur to accompany her being intimidated to advance alone. One Nepal Sardar and Manohar Sardar of Gopalpur advised her to be escorted by the appellant and eventually both moved ahead together. On the way, the appellant assaulted her and snatched away certain ornaments and wrist watch. Thereafter, the appellant committed rape on her and thereafter, the victim girl informed the incident to her brother and local people, resulting the filing of the complaint.
3. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, the Kotulpur P.S. Case No.52/91 dated 13.09.1991 under Sections 376/394 of the Indian Penal Code was initiated for investigation against the appellant.
4. Charges were framed against the appellant under Sections 376/394 of the Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited certain documents while the defence examined 2 witnesses.
6. The Learned Advocate for the appellant submitted as follows:–
i. “Inquest Report:- It was apparent from the depositions of PW-7, Dr.Netai Mukherjee on September 24, 1991 when Dr. Netai Mukherjee examined the victim no injury mark was found regarding the statement of the patient. If a married lady was raped forcibly against her will then there was every possibility of injury, such injury depends upon the age of the male person and force of rape upon the lady by that person but no injury found in private parts and no sign of recent mark of injury. For that PW-7 Dr. Netai Mukherjee, medical officer of Bishnupur Sub- Divisional Hospital to could not provide any corroboration to the story of rape on the victim lady.
It was apparent from the deposition of PW-8, Dr. Tapas Ghosh on September 14, 1991 that day when PW-8, Dr. Tapas Ghosh examined the victim there was no apparent external injury was found. For that the lack of any signs of injury on the back and buttocks of the victim lady also would indicate that the story of rape was a false and concocted one.
ii. First Information Report:- However in the First Information Report, w
