Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

Victim’s Testimony Holds Crucial Weight: Calcutta High Court Upholds Conviction in Sexual Assault Case, Orders Probe into Investigative Lapses

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


High Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 354B IPC and Section 10 of POCSO Act; Orders Departmental Enquiry into Investigative Negligence

The High Court at Calcutta, under the bench of Justice Bibhas Ranjan De, has upheld the conviction of Gopal Sardar for sexually assaulting a minor girl, dismissing his appeal against the judgment of the trial court. The appellant was convicted under Section 354B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Despite acknowledging investigative lapses, the court emphasized the reliability of the victim’s testimony and corroborative evidence from other witnesses.

The case originated from a complaint filed on September 9, 2013, by the victim’s father, alleging that Gopal Sardar, a tenant living next door, had sexually assaulted his minor daughter, X, by making sexual gestures and showing her obscene pictures. The incident occurred on September 8, 2013, and was reported to the police the following day. The trial court had sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment under the relevant sections of IPC and POCSO Act.

The court noted the consistent and detailed testimony of the victim, X, as critical in affirming the conviction. “A victim of sexual assault is not an accomplice but a competent witness whose testimony need not be corroborated in material particulars if found credible,” Justice De emphasized. The court found no material discrepancies in X’s statements made to the police, the magistrate, and during the trial.

The testimonies of the victim’s family members (PW2, PW3, PW4) and the medical officer (PW5) corroborated the victim’s account, further strengthening the prosecution’s case. Despite the absence of medical evidence indicating penetrative assault, the court held that the consistent narrative provided by the victim and corroborated by her family members was sufficient to uphold the conviction.

Justice De expressed severe criticism of the investigative lapses, particularly the failure to seize the mobile phone containing the obscene images and the lack of thorough forensic examination. “The Investigating Officer’s grave irregularities cannot undermine the reliability of the victim’s consistent testimony,” the court noted. A departmental enquiry was ordered against the Investigating Officer for negligence, directing the Commissioner of Police, Bidhannagar Police Commissionerate, to take appropriate action.

The court discussed the principles of evaluating evidence in sexual assault cases, reiterating that the victim’s testimony alone can suffice for a conviction if it is credible and trustworthy. The judgment emphasized that procedural lapses in investigation should not lead to acquittal if substantial evidence exists to prove the crime.

Justice De remarked, “The reliability of the victim’s testimony and corroborative evidence from other witnesses outweigh the investigative lapses, ensuring that justice is served.” He further stated, “A victim’s consistent and detailed narrative holds significant probative value, and procedural irregularities by the investigation should not cast doubt on such evidence.”

The High Court’s decision to uphold the conviction underscores the judiciary’s commitment to protecting victims of sexual crimes and ensuring justice is served despite procedural flaws. By ordering a departmental enquiry into the investigative lapses, the court aims to reinforce accountability within the police force. This judgment is expected to have a significant impact on future cases, emphasizing the credibility of victims’ testimonies and the need for thorough and unbiased investigations.

 

Date of Decision: 14th June 2024

Gopal Sardar vs. The State of West Bengal & Anr.

Latest Legal News