Evidence Untrustworthy and Unbelievable, Inconsistent Testimony Leads to Acquittal in POCSO Case: Calcutta High Court Upholds Trial Court’s Judgment

The High Court of Calcutta, in its recent judgment, has emphasized the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence – the presumption of innocence in favor of the accused unless proven guilty. Upholding the Trial Court’s decision, the High Court dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of the respondents in a case involving alleged sexual offences against a minor under Sections 363, 376 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 10 of the POCSO Act. The High Court asserted the necessity of sufficient evidence for conviction and stressed the duty of the appellate court in reviewing trial court decisions.

The appeal challenged the Trial Court’s acquittal of respondents accused of kidnapping and sexually assaulting a minor. The prosecution’s case hinged on the testimony of the survivor and nineteen other witnesses, along with medical evidence and various documentary proofs. Key issues included the credibility of the survivor’s testimony, contradictions in evidence, the delay in filing the FIR, and the assessment of medical evidence.

Contradictions in Testimony and Evidence: The Court noted several inconsistencies in the prosecution’s evidence, including contradictions in the survivor’s (PW1) account and discrepancies regarding the location where her statement was recorded.

Medical Evidence: The medical evidence, including the testimony of the doctor (PW15), failed to conclusively indicate sexual assault, further weakening the prosecution’s case.

Delay in Filing FIR: The Court highlighted the 19-day delay in filing the FIR, finding the explanation of preserving ‘family prestige’ insufficient and unexplained.

Presumption of Innocence and Appellate Review: The Court reiterated the presumption of innocence and stated that the appellate court’s role is to assess if the Trial Court’s view is a possible and justifiable one.

Decision: The High Court found no illegality, perversity, or error in the Trial Court’s judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal of the respondents due to insufficient evidence.

Date of Decision: 9^th April 2024

State Vs. Shri Subhankar Bhakta & Others,