Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Cal) 94

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
RAJASEKHAR MANTHA, RAI CHATTOPADHYAY, JJ.
Kishore Sharma - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal &Anr. – Respondent
CRA 246 of 2018
Decided On : 07-05-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Swapan Kumar Mallick Ms. Sudeshna Das
For the Respondent: Ms. Amita Gaur Mr. Asif Dewan

Conviction in sexual assault cases, while permissible on a victim's sole testimony, requires that testimony to be inherently consistent, of sterling quality, and free from material contradictions. Failure to satisfy these criteria, combined with doubt-inducing medical evidence, necessitates acquittal based on reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Sexual offences and protection of minors - Criminal code and special legislation regarding sexual offences.

(B) Evidence - Sole witness - A conviction can be sustained on the sole testimony of a victim if it is of sterling quality and consistent. Significant contradictions in the account, particularly concerning the place of occurrence and timing, render such testimony unreliable.

(C) Burden of proof - In criminal trials, the burden remains on the prosecution to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Inconsistencies in evidence require the court to grant the benefit of doubt to the accused. (Paras 30, 31, 39, 43).

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted of sexual assault against a minor girl after she alleged multiple incidents of rape. The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the victim. Discrepancies emerged regarding the date and location of the incident between the initial complaint, statutory statements, and court testimony. Medical examinations confirmed the pregnancy of the victim but failed to definitively corroborate the specific allegations against the accused.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the statements of the victim were contradictory, failing the test for reliable evidence. The timeline of the pregnancy was irreconcilable with the narrative of the assault provided by the victim. The absence of consistent forensic evidence further weakened the prosecution's case, failing to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

Issues: Whether the testimony of a sole witness suffices for conviction when marked by material contradictions and whether medical evidence corroborated the version of the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: A court must treat the testimony of a sole witness for sexual offences with extreme caution when internal and external contradictions exist. Reliability is foundational to conviction; absent consistent and quality evidence to establish guilt beyond doubt, the conviction must be set aside.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Table of Content
1. procedural context and initiation of appeal. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of prosecution case and framing of charges. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. witness depositions and internal evidentiary inconsistencies. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
4. threshold for convicting on sole testimony of prosecutrix. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. impact of material contradictions on credibility of the witness. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. acquittal due to benefit of doubt. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49)

Judgment :

Rajasekhar Mantha, J.

1. Mr. Asif Dewan submits today that he does not have any further instructions from the State and was desirous of retiring from the matter. This Court has requested Mr. Dewan to continue to assist since he was assisting this Court from the inception of the hearing. The State shall pay Mr. Dewan’s fees, payable according his empanelled grade, for appearing and assisting this Court in this matter regardless of the absence of instructions from the State.

2. Notice sent to the victim/de facto complainant is filed by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same is taken on record. The endorsement of the postal envelope indicates that “no such person exists”.

3. The subject appeal is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4th May, 2018 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, First Court, Sealdah, South 24-Parganas/Special Judge under the POCSO Act in Special Case No.8 of 2018. The appellant was convicted under Section 376(2)(n) of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act for imprisonment for twenty years and a fine of Rs.2,00,000/-. In default, the appellant was directed to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a year.

THE PROSECUTION CASE AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD

4. The victim girl aged between 14 to 17 years lodged a complaint dated 11th February, 2018 with the Phool bagan Police Station, Kolkata, against the appellant. The victim stated in the complaint that after Durga Puja (last day being 30th September, 2017) she had visited her native place along with her parents at Bihar. They returned back to Calcutta a week later. She started to visit the factory where her parents worked (Free India Laundry) situated at 176/1A Maniktala Main Road, Kolkata-700054.

5. The victim alleged in the complaint that the appellant has raped her as many as 6 times. The first incident of rape took place on the 3rd or 4th day in the said factory. It so happened that the victim received a call from her mother around 8:30 pm at the laundry to go home and prepare a meal.

6. On way home, outside the main entrance of the factory, the appellant, who worked as a driver thereat, grabbed her hand forcefully and took her into a room where he stayed. He closed the door, tied her mouth with a handkerchief, disrobed himself and the victim, and committed forceful sexual intercourse on her. The victim tried to shout but could not.

7. The appellant is stated to have threatened the victim against disclosing the same to any family member. If so disclosed, the appellant threatened to kill the victim and family. The victim did not inform anyone. The said offence was thereafter repeated as many as five times over several days in the month of October.

8. The victim complained of abdominal pain to her mother. She was taken on the preceding Saturday of 11th February, 2018 most likely on 10th February, 2018 to PW-6 who examined her and diagnosed her as pregnant and prescribed other medical tests. The victim or her mother had not disclosed any history of assault on the victim by the appellant to PW 6.

9. The victim returned home and upon enquiry, informed her mother that the appellant committed rape on her as many as six times. On 11th February, 2018, the appellant’s mother went to the laundry and confronted the appellant and there was a commotion thereat.

10. Upon arrival of the Phool bagan pol