Four Years of Wrongful Incarceration Ends as Court Highlights Failure to Establish Foundational Facts, Directs Compensation and Disciplinary Action
In a landmark judgment delivered on May 22, 2026, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justices Arijit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray, acquitted Professor Pratap Digal of charges under Sections 376(2)(f), 328, 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The appellant was accused of aggravated sexual assault of a minor girl entrusted to his care for education. The Court’s ruling not only set aside the conviction but also issued stern observations regarding investigative and prosecutorial misconduct, compensation for wrongful incarceration, and recommendations to reform victim compensation disbursement.
The case originated from an FIR lodged on March 23, 2022, alleging that the accused, a professor at Serampore College, had sexually assaulted a girl under his purported guardianship. The prosecution’s evidence primarily hinged on the victim’s testimony, the statements of her elder sister (the de facto complainant), and the accused’s estranged wife and son, both of whom had a documented history of hostility with the appellant, including a pending 498A IPC case initiated by the wife. The prosecution case was marred by inconsistencies, questionable seizure procedures, and failure to present key witnesses.
The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence and found that the prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts required under Section 29 of the POCSO Act to invoke the statutory presumption of guilt. The victim’s testimony was riddled with anomalies, such as contradictory statements on the timeline of the alleged offenses, and the alleged confinement was contradicted by evidence of her mobility, including attending school and communicating with family members. Moreover, the prosecution failed to establish her presence at the accused’s residence through independent witnesses or documentary evidence like the entry register of the gated college quarters.
Medical evidence further weakened the prosecution’s case. The medico-legal examination revealed no fresh injuries on the victim’s private parts, except for an old healed tear in the hymen. Crucially, vaginal swabs collected were not sent for forensic examination, violating mandatory investigative protocols. Additionally, key seizure witnesses were not summoned for trial, and incriminating items such as wearing apparels, bed sheets, and contraceptives were never produced in court.
The Court was particularly critical of the prosecution’s overreliance on the estranged wife and son of the accused, both of whom appeared biased. It was revealed that the Special Public Prosecutor handling the case had previously represented the accused’s wife in the 498A IPC matter, creating a clear conflict of interest and raising concerns about prosecutorial impartiality. The Court directed the Bar Council of West Bengal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Prosecutor, emphasizing that justice must not only be done but must also appear to be done.
Furthermore, the Court censured the Investigating Officer for a perfunctory and biased investigation, highlighting lapses such as failure to seize critical evidence, not examining vital witnesses, and neglecting forensic examination of collected samples. Disciplinary action against the IO was also recommended.
Recognizing the severe miscarriage of justice, the Court awarded Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation to Professor Digal for his wrongful incarceration of over four years. The State was granted liberty to recover this amount from the delinquent officials responsible. The appellant was immediately ordered to be released from custody, if not wanted in any other case.
In a progressive policy recommendation, the Court addressed the misuse of the Victim Compensation Scheme, proposing that 75% of compensation amounts be escrowed until the final adjudication of appeals to deter false complaints motivated by financial gain. These recommendations were forwarded to the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority and the Government for implementation.
This judgment underscores the necessity for rigorous adherence to investigative protocols, impartial prosecution, and judicial prudence before invoking statutory presumptions, especially in sensitive cases involving minors. It also highlights systemic vulnerabilities that can lead to wrongful convictions and the importance of safeguarding the rights of the accused.
Bottom Line:
The foundational facts required for the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act must be proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Mere reliance on statutory presumption cannot substitute for unreliable and biased evidence.
Statutory provision(s):
Sections 376(2)(f), 328, 506 IPC; Section 6 and Section 29 POCSO Act, 2012; Sections 164, 164A, 313, 100 Cr.P.C.; Section 27 Evidence Act
Pratap Digal v. State of West Bengal, (Calcutta)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2904587
