Silence Until Pregnancy Detection & Lack Of DNA Evidence Casts Doubt On Prosecution Case: Calcutta High Court Acquits Father In POCSO Case

"The prolonged silence of the victim, the emergence of the accusation only after detection of pregnancy and the absence of any contemporaneous disclosure create circumstances rendering the testimony susceptible to doubt and therefore incapable of being accepted without careful scrutiny." Calcutta High Court, in a significant judgment, set aside the conviction of a father accused of sexually assaulting his minor daughter, observing that the victim's testimony failed the "sterling witness" test due to prolonged silence and the absence of scientific evidence.

A division bench of Justice Rajasekhar Mantha and Justice Smita Das De held that while a conviction can rest on the sole testimony of a prosecutrix, such evidence must be of "sterling quality" and free from inherent improbabilities.

The appellant was convicted under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, by the Special Judge at Sealdah for allegedly assaulting his 16-year-old daughter over a period of three months. The matter came to light only after the victim was hospitalized with severe abdominal pain, which was later diagnosed as an ectopic pregnancy requiring surgical termination. The mother (complainant) alleged that the victim named her father as the perpetrator only after regaining consciousness post-surgery.

The primary question before the court was whether the testimony of the victim and her mother could be classified as "sterling evidence" sufficient to sustain a conviction. The court was also called upon to determine the evidentiary value of medical reports in the absence of DNA profiling and the impact of material omissions in the mother's deposition.

Victim's Conduct Found Inconsistent With Normal Human Behaviour

The court meticulously examined the timeline of events, noting that the victim remained silent during the entire three-month period of the alleged abuse. Even when she became critically ill and was admitted to the hospital, no allegations were raised against the father. The bench observed that the accusation surfaced only after the pregnancy was medically detected and terminated.

The bench remarked that while delay in disclosure is not always fatal in sexual offence cases, the explanation for such silence must appear reasonably probable. In this case, the court found the victim's conduct "unnatural and inconsistent with normal human behaviour," noting that she did not disclose the ordeal to her mother or sister despite residing in the same household.

"Accusation emerged only after the pregnancy has been detected and abortion performed... Such conduct does not appear consistent with the ordinary course of human behaviour."

Testimony Fails The 'Sterling Witness' Standard

Referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Rai Sandeep @ Deepu versus State (NCT of Delhi), the High Court emphasized that a sterling witness is one whose version is consistent, withstands cross-examination, and is free from embellishment. The court held that the victim (PW1) did not satisfy these characteristics due to the "prolonged silence" and the specific timing of the accusation.

The bench noted that the jurisprudential requirement for a conviction is proof beyond reasonable doubt. It held that when a witness's testimony suffers from inherent improbabilities or material inconsistencies, the court is justified in seeking corroboration from other evidence, which was conspicuously absent in this trial.

"The testimony of PW1 is not a 'sterling quality'... The emergence of the accusation only after detection of pregnancy and the absence of any contemporaneous disclosure create circumstances rendering the testimony susceptible to doubt."

Material Omissions By The Mother Affect Credibility

The court pulled up the complainant mother (PW2) for significant omissions in her court deposition. While the FIR provided a detailed account of the victim's hospitalization and abortion, the mother failed to disclose these material facts during her examination-in-chief. The court held that such omissions touched the "very genesis" of the prosecution case.

Citing State of Rajasthan versus Kalki, the bench distinguished between minor discrepancies and material omissions. It ruled that when an omission touches the foundation of the prosecution story, it ceases to be a mere discrepancy and assumes substantial significance, rendering the testimony vulnerable and untrustworthy.

"The omission of PW2 regarding the hospitalization and abortion prior to lodging of the FIR pertains directly to the genesis of the prosecution case and therefore materially affects her credibility."

Medical Evidence Establishes Pregnancy But Not The Perpetrator

While the medical evidence confirmed that the victim had been pregnant and had undergone an ectopic pregnancy surgery, the court clarified that medical findings cannot identify the perpetrator. The doctors who recorded the case history merely repeated what the victim narrated, which the court held was not substantive evidence of the truth of its contents.

Furthermore, the bench highlighted the total absence of scientific evidence, such as DNA profiling, to link the appellant to the pregnancy. The court noted that the potency report of the appellant only proved his physical capability to have intercourse, not the actual commission of the offence.

"Potency alone is not a proof of commission... No DNA profiling or comparable forensic examination has been brought on record to connect the appellant with the pregnancy."

Probable Alternate Hypothesis And Domestic Discord

The court took note of the evidence regarding domestic discord between the appellant and his second wife (the complainant). It was revealed that the appellant was financially supporting his first wife, which created a potential motive for false implication. The court also noted the victim's proximity to her step-brother, suggesting a "probable alternate hypothesis."

The bench concluded that where two views are reasonably possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail. Finding that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the father beyond all reasonable doubt, the court granted him the benefit of doubt and ordered his immediate release.

"In criminal jurisprudence, whenever two views are reasonably possible from the evidence on record, the view favourable to the accused must prevail."

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence dated February 18, 2019. It held that the cumulative effect of the victim's silence, the hearsay nature of supporting witnesses, and the lack of scientific corroboration generated sufficient reasonable doubt to warrant an acquittal.

Date of Decision: 08 July 2026