"Party Autonomy is the Backbone of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Sole Arbitrator Appointment Despite Party’s Attempts to Frustrate Arbitration Proceedings    |     Reasonable Doubt Arising from Sole Testimony in Absence of Corroboration, Power Cut Compounded Identification Difficulties: Supreme Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case    |     ED Can Investigate Without FIRs: PH High Court Affirms PMLA’s Broad Powers    |     Accident Claim | Contributory Negligence Cannot Be Vicariously Attributed to Passengers: Supreme Court    |     Default Bail | Indefeasible Right to Bail Prevails: Allahabad High Court Faults Special Judge for Delayed Extension of Investigation    |     “Habitual Offenders Cannot Satisfy Bail Conditions Under NDPS Act”: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to Accused with Extensive Criminal Record    |     Delhi High Court Denies Substitution for Son Due to 'Gross Unexplained Delay' of Over Six Years in Trademark Suit    |     Section 4B of the Tenancy Act Cannot Override Land Exemptions for Public Development: Bombay High Court    |     Suspicion, However High, Is Not a Substitute for Proof: Calcutta High Court Orders Reinstatement of Coast Guard Officer Dismissed on Suspicion of Forgery    |     Age Not Conclusively Proven, Prosecutrix Found to be a Consenting Party: Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Accused in POCSO Case    |     'Company's Absence in Prosecution Renders Case Void': Himachal High Court Quashes Complaint Against Pharma Directors    |     Preventive Detention Cannot Sacrifice Personal Liberty on Mere Allegations: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention of Local Journalist    |     J.J. Act | Accused's Age at Offense Critical - Juvenility Must Be Addressed: Kerala High Court Directs Special Court to Reframe Charges in POCSO Case    |     Foreign Laws Must Be Proved Like Facts: Delhi HC Grants Bail in Cryptocurrency Money Laundering Case    |    

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