Wrongfully sentenced to 20 years over minor’s rape, college professor acquitted; to get Rs 10 lakh payout

Justices Apurba Sinha Ray and Arijit Banerjee said that profound agony, personal suffering, and irreparable damage to the professor’s reputation cannot be fully mitigated.

The high court was hearing an appeal filed by the professor challenging the trial court’s judgment convicting him of sexually assaulting a minor girl and sentencing him to 20 years in prison.

‘Clear risk of bias’

• The court noted that appointing a special public prosecutor who had previously represented the professor’s wife, an important witness in this case, created a clear risk of bias. 
• The court pointed out that, given that the professor has spent four years in custody, his testimony regarding how the prosecution was conducted was the “best evidence” as to whether the special public prosecutor acted with a biased or antagonistic mind. 
• The court mentioned that if disciplinary proceedings are initiated against the special public prosecutor, then the state bar council should ensure that the man is given a full and fair opportunity. 
• The court mentioned that the illegal detention of the college professor was entirely avoidable.
• It was added that if the state’s officers had acted with basic professional diligence at the inception of the proceedings, this miscarriage of justice would not have occurred. 
• The profound agony, personal suffering, and irreparable damage to the professor’s reputation cannot be fully mitigated.
• The court emphasised that the state must remain accountable for the systemic failures of its functionaries. 
• The court added that the investigation made by the investigation officer concerned is perfunctory, biased and unreliable on several counts. 
• The high court pointed out that the prolonged deprivation of liberty of the man was directly precipitated by the gross incompetence of the investigating officer and the antagonistic, ethically deficient conduct of the special public prosecutor.
• The court added that the legal remembrancer and the state principal secretary of the judicial department are directed to remit Rs 10 lakhs to the professor’s account within three months. 
• The high court pointed out that while the victim compensation scheme is a noble instrument for rehabilitation, a concerning trend where the prospect of financial gain incentivises unscrupulous individuals to lodge false complaints. 
• It was added further that to balance the necessity of victim support with the protection of innocent citizens, a more rigorous disbursement structure is required. 

A case of sexual assault

The prosecution case originated from an FIR lodged in March 2022 by the elder sister of a minor girl. According to the complaint, the girl was living with her father but was allegedly facing mistreatment at the hands of her stepmother. It was alleged that her father subsequently arranged for her to stay with the accused professor for educational purposes. 

The father of the survivor left the minor girl with the accused about two weeks before the date of the alleged incident. But after 4 to 5 days, the accused allegedly established a sexual relationship with the minor on several occasions, and further, administered medicines to her, threatened her into silence and kept her confined.

The minor girl allegedly tried to flee from there, but she could not succeed. Subsequently, she informed her elder sister, the complainant, over the phone, who rescued her later. 

It was alleged that the professor committed rape upon the minor girl, after administering contraceptive medicines to her and kept her in confinement. Subsequently, the trial court sentenced the professor to suffer imprisonment for 20 years.

Aggrieved by the same, the college professor moved the Calcutta High Court. 

Serious investigative lapses 

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Lord Chatterjee submitted that medical evidence did not support the prosecution’s case since no fresh injuries were found despite the allegation that the minor was forcibly ravaged on several occasions. 

He submitted that the prosecution’s case suffers from pervasive contradiction, serious investigative lapses and inherent improbabilities that render the conviction unsustainable. 

He added that there are inconsistencies in the dates of the alleged last intercourse. 

Minor lacunae or latches

Representing the state, advocate Joydeep Roy submitted that the allegation of sexual assault upon students by private tutors should be looked at with utmost sensitivity. 

It was further submitted that in the instant case, the wife of the professor has enmity with her estranged husband and a case alleging cruelty is pending against him. 

It was further submitted that the defence was not able to rebut the presumption of guilt of the accused established by the prosecution that the professor had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault with the minor. 

Trustworthy testimony

The minor girl’s counsel, advocate Amit Ranjan Pati, argued that in cases of POCSO, the apex court as well as this high court, reiterated that the conviction could be sustained based on the sole testimony of the victim if the evidence of the victim has credibility and is found to be trustworthy. 

It was added that minor lacunae or latches on the part of the investigating officer do not discard the prosecution case. 

Boys bear consequences

Rmarking that young boys often “bear the consequences” in cases of consensual relationships between adolescents, the Madras High Court recently acquitted a young man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

While acting on the appeal of the young man, Justice N Mala noted that the survivor was aged about 16 years and the accused was 17 years old.

“Under parental pressure, the girl may be compelled to marry another person, following which criminal proceedings are initiated against the boy under the POCSO Act, resulting in his prolonged incarceration,” the February 16 order read.