Appellate Court Must Re-Appreciate Evidence To Determine Lesser Offence Under Section 386 CrPC If Graver Charge Is Not Sustained: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Provisions Override Other Laws Including Principles Of Res Judicata: Supreme Court Right To Information Act | CCTV Footage Cannot Be Provided Directly To Applicant If It Falls Under Section 8(1)(g) Exemptions: Allahabad High Court Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is The Paramount Consideration In Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings: Andhra Pradesh High Court Inefficient Case Management By State Law Officers Impedes Justice: Allahabad High Court Directs Principal Secretary (Law) To Reform Procedures Section 24 CPC | Convenience Of Wife Is A Primary Consideration For Transfer Of Matrimonial Proceedings, But Virtual Appearance Can Mitigate Hardship: Andhra Pradesh High Court Son Cannot Claim Co-Ownership Or Resist Eviction Based On Alleged Financial Contribution To Property Purchased In Mother’s Name: Delhi High Court Order 33 Rule 1 CPC | Applicant Must Prove Inability To Pay Court Fee With Cogent Evidence; Mere Assertion Of Indigence Is Insufficient: Chhattisgarh High Court Plaintiff Must Establish Independent Right To Possession, Cannot Rely Solely On Lacunae In Defendant’s Evidence: Delhi High Court Successor Cannot Remain Silent: Bombay High Court Upholds Tenant's Right To Purchase Agricultural Land, Rules Rejection Before 1961 Amendment No Bar Single Mother Has Right To Determine Child’s Surname And Alter Biological Father's Name In Birth Certificate: Calcutta High Court Court Can Sanction Professional Fees Of Valuers Exceeding Prescribed Ceiling Post-Assignment: Bombay High Court MACT | Appellate Court Can Reduce Compensation Even If Insurer’s Appeal Challenges Quantum While Claimant Seeks Enhancement: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Amendment Of Written Statement To Correct Internal Inconsistencies Does Not Amount To Withdrawal Of Admission: Delhi High Court Oral Family Partition Valid Even If Unregistered: Jharkhand High Court Power Of Attorney Lacking Explicit Interest Is Revocable Regardless Of 'Irrevocable' Label: Gujarat High Court DRC Act | Summary Eviction Proceedings Cannot Be Converted Into Extended Litigation By Seeking To File Additional Documents Post-Pleadings: Delhi High Court Financial Institutions Cannot Use 'Goonda-ism' For Repossession: Supreme Court Mandates Compensation For Violation Of Article 21 Motor Vehicles Act: Claimant Cannot Invoke Jurisdiction Of A Forum Where Neither Accident Occurred Nor Defendant Resides: Supreme Court Article 226 | Writ Court Cannot Decide Title Disputes Or Protect Possession If Factual Matrix Is Disputed: Supreme Court Suppression Of Material Facts In Writ Petition Under Article 32 Renders Challenge Non-Maintainable: Supreme 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.

Latest Legal News