"High Court Reduces Sentence in Landmark Conviction Appeal, Cites Lack of Abduction Evidence"

In a significant legal development, the High Court at Calcutta, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri, recently delivered a verdict that has drawn attention to the importance of evidence in criminal cases. The judgment, handed down by The Hon’ble Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury, pertains to the appeal in CRA 4 of 2019 filed by Hemanta Barman against his conviction under Sections 365 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code.

The key focus of the appellant's challenge was on discrepancies in the prosecution's case, including the failure to prove the age of the victim and the absence of evidence of abduction. The appellant argued that the victim, who had a prior relationship with him, left her home voluntarily, and therefore, there was no kidnapping within the meaning of Section 361 of the IPC.

Justice Siddhartha Roy Chowdhury acknowledged the appellant's contentions and observed, "If we, go by the maiden statement of the de facto complainant, and if it is assumed that the victim was not abducted or kidnapped, she left her house with the accused person on her own, that does not give the accused person the right to invade upon the privacy of the victim girl or to commit any penetrative sexual offence within the meaning of rape as defined under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code."

The verdict also touched upon the victim's testimony and medical evidence. The victim had testified that she had raised an alarm during the alleged sexual assault, and this statement during cross-examination played a crucial role in affirming the conviction under Section 376 of the IPC.

Although the prosecution failed to prove the victim's age in accordance with Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, the Court decided that this did not undermine the overall case. As a result, the conviction under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code was set aside, but the conviction under Section 376 was upheld.

In a notable decision, the Court reduced the accused person's sentence from seven years to four years, taking into consideration the 16-year duration of the case and the appellant's role as the family's sole breadwinner. Justice Roy Chowdhury noted, "Under such circumstances, I am of the view that the ends of justice would be met if the appellant / convict is sentenced to suffer imprisonment for four years instead of seven years for committing an offence under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code."

Date of Decision: 04.9.2023

HEMANTA BARMAN vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL