Calcutta HC acquits man jailed for 4 years in POCSO case, flags conspiracy between wife and prosecutor

The Calcutta High Court recently acquitted a college professor who was found guilty by the trial court and sentenced to 20 years imprisonment for the alleged rape a 16-year-old girl.

A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray found that the professor was framed in the case under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) on the basis of the testimony given by his estranged wife Rita Soren and their son.

The Court ruled the accused had endured four years of wrongful incarceration on account of police incompetence and antagonistic conduct of a prosecutor.

“As the victim’s testimony is full of anomalies and the only supporting evidence comes from "star witnesses" with a documented vendetta (the 498A case), the foundational facts themselves are shaky. A presumption cannot be used to fill a gap left by unreliable or coached evidence,” the Bench said.

Hence, it acquitted the accused, Pratap Digal, and directed the State to pay a compensation of ₹10 lakh to him within three months.

The Court also ordered the Director General of Police to immediately consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against Sub Inspector (SI) Nibedita Koley for allowing herself to be swayed by biased and unreliable witnesses against Digal.

It also found that advocate Joydeep Mukherjee, who was the special public prosecutor (SPP) in the case, had earlier represented Digal’s wife in a case under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (cruelty to wife).

It said that Mukherjee should have withdrawn himself from the case but instead used his client and her son’s testimony to frame “the appellant who was a professor in Serampore College and was in custody for more than 4 years.”

The Court said there was a serious doubt about the prosecution’s impartiality as a clear risk of bias was created by appointing an SPP who previously represented Digal’s wife, an important witness in the POCSO Act case.

Calling it a case of professional misconduct, the Court directed the Chairman of Bar Council of West Bengal to immediately consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against advocate Mukherjee.

“If the Special Public Prosecutor—acting with a pre-existing antagonistic interest—pushed for a conviction based on a presumption while knowing the evidence was weak, it elevates "professional misconduct" to a malicious prosecution. The conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor in pursuing a conviction despite the apparent conflict of interest has contributed to a grave miscarriage of justice, resulting in the four-year incarceration of an academician,” the Bench said.

The case dating back to 2022 was registered on the complaint made by the victim's sister. She stated that their father had entrusted the victim with the accused-professor for education but he established sexual relations with her on several occasions. She tried to flee but could not succeed, it was alleged.

However, the High Court ruled that the victim’s presence and stay at the residence of the accused was not proved by cogent and independent evidence. It said that the police failed to examine other academicians whose residential quarters were adjacent to the residence of the accused.

It added that the residence of the accused was searched in his absence. Further, it said that the victim’s alleged attempt to flee from there was not supported by any evidence. The Court questioned the police’s excessive reliance on the testimony of the accused's estranged wife and son. 

“It is very unfortunate that without examining the neighbouring professors or colleagues residing in the next door or adjacent quarters, the IO thought that the estranged wife and son of the appellant would be the perfect witnesses to grill the appellant, who is a professor of Serampore College. Now, the question is how she got the information about the wife and son of the appellant. Was there any prior acquaintance with each other or was the IO aware that a criminal case under section 498A IPC was pending against the appellant at the instance of his wife? What were the reasons for making the estranged wife and son as star witnesses for the Prosecution, particularly when the IO had sufficient opportunity to get other vital witnesses from the place of occurrence or its vicinity?,” the Court asked.

The Court also ruled that the medical examination of the victim was non-conclusive. In spite of the collection of vaginal swabs of the victim-girl, the same was not sent for forensic examination, it noted.

Consequently, the Court set aside the guilty verdict passed by the trial court and acquitted the accused.

“The cross-examination of prosecution witnesses have clearly demolished the prosecution case which is based on unreliable testimonies of the victim girl, her elder sister and also upon the biased deposition of the estranged wife of the appellant and her son,” the Bench said. 

While directing payment of compensation of ₹10 lakh to Digal, the Court said that the State can recover the same from SI Koley and advocate Mukherjee. Digal was given the liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings against them for seeking damages. 

Advocates Lord Chatterjee and M Chakraborty represented the accused.

Advocate Amit Ranjan Pati represented the complainant.

Advocates Joydeep Roy and Baishali Chatterjee represented the State.