“No Effort Was Made By Trial Judge To Analyse Evidence”: Calcutta High Court Acquits College Professor In POCSO Case

The Calcutta High Court has acquitted a Serampore College professor who had been convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, holding that the prosecution failed to establish the “foundational facts” necessary to invoke the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.

A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray observed that the trial court had “straightway” invoked the presumption under Section 29 without properly analysing whether the prosecution evidence was reliable and free from “blemishes and anomalies.”

The Court was hearing an appeal filed by professor Pratap Digal against his conviction under Sections 376(2)(f)/506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act in connection with allegations that he had repeatedly sexually assaulted a minor girl who had been left in his care for education.

The Bench extensively scrutinised the prosecution evidence and found serious investigative lapses, contradictions in witness testimonies, absence of corroborative evidence, doubtful seizure procedures, and failure to conduct forensic examination of vaginal swabs collected during the victim's medical examination.

Trial Court Failed To Examine Whether “Foundational Facts” Were Established

Referring to recent Supreme Court decisions on Section 29 of the POCSO Act, the High Court reiterated that the statutory presumption is not automatic and arises only after the prosecution proves foundational facts through cogent evidence.

The Bench observed that the trial judge merely reproduced the depositions of prosecution witnesses and then “straightway came to the conclusion” that foundational facts stood established.

The Court held: “No effort was made by the learned Trial Judge to analyse the evidence... and also to see whether such evidence is free from blemishes and anomalies.”

Victim's Presence At Professor's Quarter Not Independently Proved

The Court found that the prosecution failed to independently establish that the victim had in fact stayed at the professor's residential quarter at Mac House, Serampore College.

The Bench noted that the investigating officer neither examined the church priest who allegedly arranged the victim's stay with the appellant, nor seized the entry register maintained at the gated residential compound which could have shown the victim's entry into the premises.

The Court remarked that if outsider entries were mandatorily recorded at the gate, the register was “a document of enormous importance” and its non-seizure created serious doubt regarding the prosecution story.

Medical Evidence Did Not Corroborate Allegations Of Repeated Forced Assault

The Bench also found significant inconsistencies between the allegations of repeated forcible sexual assault and the medical evidence on record.

The victim had alleged that she suffered severe pain and repeated forced intercourse, including during menstruation. However, the doctor who conducted the medico-legal examination found no visible injuries on the vaginal walls, labia, fourchette, or any other part of the body, apart from an old healed tear in the hymen.

The Court observed that the doctor himself stated that injuries in private parts could take up to 28 days to completely heal, making the total absence of injuries difficult to reconcile with the prosecution version of repeated forcible intercourse.

Failure To Send Vaginal Swabs For Forensic Examination Was “Peculiar”

The Court strongly criticised the investigating officer for failing to send vaginal swabs collected during medical examination for forensic analysis.

Noting that the medical report itself recorded that the “conclusion” was pending forensic examination, the Bench held:

“It is peculiar that in spite of the collection and seizure of the vaginal swab of the victim the same was not sent for chemical examination.”

The Court said such forensic examination became all the more important because the doctor had not found injuries or foreign material in the victim's body.

Court Questions Investigating Officer's Reliance On Estranged Wife & Son

The Bench expressed serious concern over what it described as the investigating officer's “excessive reliance” on the appellant's estranged wife and son, despite a long-pending matrimonial dispute between them.

The Court noted that the wife had previously filed a case under Section 498A IPC against the appellant and was admittedly living separately since 2012.

It further observed that several allegations made by the wife during trial regarding the appellant's alleged conduct with minor girls and domestic workers were never mentioned in her earlier complaint under Section 498A IPC.

The Bench remarked: “No self-respecting working woman would tolerate such an adulterous life of her husband.”

The Court held that the investigating officer failed to examine neutral witnesses residing near the college quarters and instead relied heavily on “interested witnesses” without adequate justification.

Seizure Procedures Found Doubtful

The Bench also found serious irregularities in the seizure of alleged incriminating articles, including bed sheets, condoms, contraceptive pills and photographs recovered from the appellant's residence.

It noted that the alleged disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was never produced before the Court, local independent witnesses were not associated with the seizures, and even the police personnel shown as seizure witnesses were not examined during trial.

The Court termed the veracity of the seizure lists “very doubtful.”

Holding that the prosecution failed to establish foundational facts necessary to sustain the conviction, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant.

Case: Pratap Digal Vs. The State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case No: CRA (DB) No. 25 OF 2025

Click here to read order