Or. 6 Rule 17 CPC | A Suit Cannot be Converted into a Fresh Litigation – Amendment Cannot Introduce a New Cause of Action: Andhra Pradesh High Court Government Cannot Withhold Retirement Without Formal Rejection Before Notice Period Expires: Delhi High Court Drug Offences Threaten Society, Courts Must Show Zero Tolerance : Meghalaya High Court Refuses Bail Under Section 37 NDPS Act Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to Serious Allegations, Unless Justified by Law: Kerala High Court When Law Prescribes a Limitation, Courts Cannot Ignore It: Supreme Court Quashes Time-Barred Prosecution Under Drugs and Cosmetics Act Issuing Notices to a Non-Existent Entity is a Substantive Illegality, Not a Mere Procedural Lapse: Bombay High Court Quashes Income Tax Reassessment Notices Termination Without Verifying Evidence is Legally Unsustainable: Allahabad High Court Reinstates Government Counsel Luxury for One Cannot Mean Struggle for the Other - Husband’s True Income Cannot Be Suppressed to Deny Fair Maintenance: Calcutta High Court Penalty Proceedings Must Be Initiated and Concluded Within The Prescribed Timeline Under Section 275(1)(C): Karnataka High Court Upholds ITAT Order" Landlord Entitled to Recovery of Possession, Arrears of Rent, and Damages for Unauthorized Occupation: Madras High Court Supreme Court Slams Punjab and Haryana High Court for Illegally Reversing Acquittal in Murder Case, Orders ₹5 Lakh Compensation for Wrongful Conviction Mere Absence of Wholesale License Does Not Make a Transaction Unlawful:  Supreme Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Against INOX Air Products Stigmatic Dismissal Without Inquiry Violates Fair Process, Rules High Court in Employment Case Recruiting Authorities Have Discretion to Fix Cut-Off Marks – No Arbitrariness Found: Orissa High Court Charge-Sheet Is Not a Punishment, Courts Should Not Interfere: Madhya Pradesh High Court Dismisses Writ Against Departmental Inquiry Injunction Cannot Be Granted Without Identifiable Property or Evidence of Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Fairness Demands Compensation Under the 2013 Act; Bureaucratic Delays Cannot Defeat Justice: Supreme Court Competition Commission Must Issue Notice to Both Parties in a Combination Approval: Supreme Court Physical Possession and Settled Possession Are Prerequisites for Section 6 Relief: Delhi High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Decision Granting Possession Hyper-Technical Approach Must Be Avoided in Pre-Trial Amendments: Punjab & Haryana High Court FIR Lodged After Restitution of Conjugal Rights Suit Appears Retaliatory: Calcutta High Court Quashes Domestic Violence Case Two-Year Immunity from No-Confidence Motion Applies to Every Elected Sarpanch, Not Just the First in Office: Bombay High Court Enforcing The Terms Of  Agreement Does Not Amount To Contempt Of Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Contempt Order Against Power Company Officers Consent of a minor is immaterial under law: Allahabad High Court Rejects Bail Plea of Man Accused of Enticing Minor Sister-in-Law and Dowry Harassment False Promise of Marriage Does Not Automatically Amount to Rape: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Under Section 376 IPC Dowry Harassment Cannot Be Ignored, But Justice Must Be Fair: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Under Section 498A IPC, Modifies Sentence to Time Served with Compensation of ₹3 Lakh Mere Presence in a Crime Scene Insufficient to Prove Common Intention – Presence Not Automatically Establish Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Supreme Court: Compensation Must Ensure Financial Stability—Not Be Subject to Arbitrary Reductions: Supreme Court Slams Arbitrary Reduction of Motor Accident Compensation by High Court

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.

Similar News