Negligence of Investigators Cannot Eclipse the Victim's Testimony in Sexual Offences: Calcutta High Court

"Delay in Filing Complaint Not Fatal Where Core Allegations Stand Proved", - Calcutta High Court delivered a crucial judgment dealing with the impact of investigative lapses and delay in filing an FIR in sexual offence cases. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das upheld the conviction of the appellant for offences under Sections 354 IPC and 376/511 IPC, observing emphatically that "negligence on the part of the investigating authority cannot be the reason for disbelieving the case of a lady who alleges to be the victim of sexual harassment."

The Court reaffirmed that delay in lodging the complaint cannot be deemed fatal if the evidence on record, read with surrounding circumstances, substantiates the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The case arose from an incident dated 6 February 1998, wherein the prosecutrix, while attending to nature's call in a sugarcane field, was allegedly attacked by the appellant Samar Debangsi. The accused, according to the prosecution, assaulted her, attempted to disrobe her forcibly, and tried to commit rape. Following this, Burwan Police Station registered an FIR and, after investigation, submitted a chargesheet. The Sessions Court, upon trial, convicted Samar Debangsi for the offences of outraging modesty and attempting to commit rape, sentencing him to terms of two years and three-and-a-half years imprisonment respectively. Aggrieved by this conviction, the appellant approached the High Court in appeal.

The defence primarily rested on alleged inconsistencies in witness testimonies, delay in lodging the FIR, absence of medical evidence, and an ongoing land dispute suggesting the possibility of a false implication.

The High Court was called upon to consider whether procedural deficiencies and delay in filing the FIR were sufficient to discredit the prosecution case. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das, dissecting the record, categorically ruled that "mere delay in lodging the FIR, in a case of sexual assault, should not per se be a ground to throw out the prosecution case."

The Court observed that "the prosecutrix’s evidence must be appreciated in the backdrop of trauma and stigma associated with sexual offences" and cited the landmark authority State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, reiterating that the sole testimony of the prosecutrix is sufficient to convict, if found credible and trustworthy.

Addressing the defence arguments about discrepancies, the Court stated, "Minor inconsistencies which do not go to the root of the matter must not discredit the prosecution’s core case, especially when it relates to sexual offences."

The judgment further noted, "It is pertinent to observe that the prosecutrix was immediately found in a disheveled state, her clothes torn, and her body bruised, all of which corroborate her version of events."

Referring to the element of attempt under Section 376/511 IPC, the Court invoked the Supreme Court’s formulation in Aman Kumar v. State of Haryana, where it was held that "an attempt consists of the intention to commit the crime coupled with an act towards its commission falling short of actual commission." On this basis, the High Court found that the acts of disrobing, physical assault, and clear sexual intent evidenced a punishable attempt to commit rape.

On the aspect of negligent investigation, the Court drew guidance from Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra and observed, "Errors in investigation should not cloud the substantial evidence brought forth unless serious prejudice is shown."

In the final analysis, Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentences awarded by the Trial Court. Emphatically rejecting technical objections, the Court declared, "The edifice of criminal justice would collapse if guilty persons are allowed to escape on mere technicalities."

This judgment serves as a strong reiteration that justice for victims of sexual violence cannot be defeated by minor procedural lapses or delay in complaint, and that courts must focus on the substantive truth emerging from the evidentiary record.

Date of Decision: 25 April 2025