Can Presumption of Guilt Override the Right to a Fair Trial?
Calcutta High Court Acquits Professor in POCSO-Rape Case, Reaffirms That Evidence Must Precede Presumption
Kolkata, May 2026: In a significant judgement that reinforces the importance of due process and fair trial rights, the Calcutta High Court has acquitted a professor who had been convicted under rape and POCSO charges and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment. The Court held that statutory presumptions under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act cannot substitute reliable evidence and proper investigation.
The ruling, delivered on 22 May 2026 by Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, is likely to be cited in future cases dealing with the interpretation of Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which creates a presumption against an accused once certain foundational facts are established.
Background of the Case
The criminal proceedings began in March 2022 when the elder sister of a minor girl lodged a complaint alleging that the victim had informed her over the phone that she had been repeatedly sexually assaulted by a professor at whose residence she had been staying for educational purposes.
Following the complaint, an FIR was registered, and the professor was arrested and prosecuted. The trial court ultimately convicted him under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act, imposing a sentence of 20 years’ rigorous imprisonment.
The conviction was challenged before the Calcutta High Court.
What the High Court Examined
The appellate court undertook a detailed review of the evidence, witness testimonies, medical records, seizure procedures, and the manner in which the investigation was conducted.
After scrutinising the record, the Bench found multiple deficiencies that raised serious doubts about the prosecution’s version.
Among the concerns highlighted by the court were the following:
- Contradictory witness statements.
- Lack of independent corroboration.
- Missing forensic evidence.
- Doubtful seizure procedures.
- Failure to examine crucial witnesses.
- Investigative lapses affecting the credibility of the prosecution case.
The Court concluded that these shortcomings prevented the prosecution from establishing the foundational facts required before the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act could operate.
Section 29 POCSO: Presumption Is Not Automatic
One of the most important aspects of the judgement relates to the interpretation of Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
The provision creates a reverse burden mechanism under which the court may presume that the accused committed the offence once foundational facts are established by the prosecution.
However, the High Court clarified that this does not mean that every allegation automatically becomes proof.
The Bench observed that before any burden shifts to the accused, the prosecution must first present legally admissible and credible evidence establishing the basic ingredients of the offence.
The Court emphasised that criminal courts cannot mechanically accept the prosecution’s version without careful scrutiny merely because a case arises under POCSO.
This observation assumes greater significance because courts across India continue to balance two competing objectives:
- Protecting children from sexual abuse.
- Preserving the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial for accused persons.
Serious Gaps in Investigation
The High Court found that the alleged incidents were said to have occurred within a gated educational campus where entry and exit records were maintained.
Yet investigators failed to seize the relevant entry registers.
The Court observed that such records could have helped verify important aspects of the prosecution’s narrative, including the movements of individuals allegedly involved in the incident.
The Bench also noted that no independent witnesses from the campus or nearby residential quarters were examined despite their potential relevance.
This omission weakened the prosecution’s attempt to establish a coherent chain of circumstances.
Questions Raised Over Investigative Neutrality
Another striking aspect of the judgement concerns the role played by the accused’s estranged wife and son.
The Court noted that there had been an existing matrimonial dispute between the accused and his wife, including proceedings under Section 498A IPC.
Despite this background, the investigating agency relied heavily on statements made by family members involved in the dispute.
The Court expressed concern regarding the objectivity of the investigation and questioned whether external influences may have affected the investigative process.
The judgement serves as a reminder that criminal investigations must remain impartial and free from personal, familial, or external biases.
Doubtful Recovery and Seizure Process
The High Court also found defects in the manner in which evidence was allegedly seized.
Several seizure witnesses were not examined during the trial, making it difficult to verify the authenticity of the recovery process.
Because independent corroboration was missing, the Court found it unsafe to place complete reliance on the seizure documents relied upon by the prosecution.
In criminal jurisprudence, procedural safeguards relating to search and seizure are intended to prevent fabrication and ensure transparency. Failure to comply with these safeguards can significantly affect the prosecution’s credibility.
Medical and Forensic Evidence Failed to Support Allegations
The Court further observed that the medical evidence did not strongly corroborate the allegations of repeated forcible sexual assault.
Although vaginal swabs had been collected during the medical examination, the samples were never subjected to forensic analysis.
This omission deprived the Court of potentially crucial scientific evidence.
The judgement notes that despite allegations of repeated assaults, no significant injuries consistent with the prosecution’s narrative were documented during the medical examination.
The absence of forensic testing emerged as one of the most serious shortcomings in the investigation.
Contradictions in the Confinement Theory
The prosecution also alleged that the victim was effectively confined.
However, evidence showed that the girl attended school outside the residence and had opportunities to interact with other individuals and access telephones.
These circumstances created inconsistencies in the prosecution’s confinement theory and further weakened the reliability of the allegations.
The Court also found portions of the testimony given by the accused’s estranged wife to be unreliable because several serious allegations introduced during trial had not appeared in her earlier statements.
Why This Judgment Matters
The decision arrives at a time when courts across India are increasingly emphasising both victim protection and procedural fairness.
Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence has repeatedly stressed that while offences against children must be dealt with firmly, convictions cannot be based on assumptions, emotions, or incomplete investigations.
The Calcutta High Court’s ruling reinforces several well-established criminal law principles:
- Presumption of innocence remains a cornerstone of criminal justice.
- Statutory presumptions cannot replace evidence.
- Investigations must be fair, objective, and thorough.
- Scientific and forensic evidence should be collected and analysed wherever available.
- Courts must carefully evaluate witness credibility before recording convictions.
The judgement highlights that justice requires protection not only for victims but also for innocent individuals who may otherwise face wrongful prosecution.
Laws and Legal Provisions Involved
| Law / Section | Purpose | Relevance in the Case |
|---|---|---|
| Section 376(2)(f) IPC | Aggravated rape | Main rape allegation |
| Section 328 IPC | Administering intoxicating substances | Allegation of administering medication |
| Section 506 IPC | Criminal intimidation | Alleged threats to victim |
| Section 6 POCSO Act | Aggravated penetrative sexual assault | Principal POCSO charge |
| Section 29 POCSO Act | Presumption against accused after foundational facts are proved | Central legal issue before High Court |
| Section 498A IPC | Cruelty by husband or relatives | Relevant due to matrimonial dispute |
| Section 164 CrPC | Statements before the magistrate | Statements of victim and witnesses |
| Section 313 CrPC | Explanation by accused | The accused denied allegations |
| Section 100 CrPC | Search and seizure procedure | The court found procedural deficiencies |
| Section 27 Evidence Act | Discovery based on accused’s statement | Recovery evidence questioned |
Key Legal Takeaways
1. Presumption Cannot Replace Proof
The reverse burden under Section 29 POCSO becomes relevant only after foundational facts are established through credible evidence.
2. Forensic Evidence Matters
Failure to send biological samples for scientific examination can seriously weaken a prosecution case.
3. Investigative Neutrality Is Essential
Investigations influenced by personal disputes or bias risk undermining the integrity of criminal proceedings.
4. Independent Corroboration Strengthens Cases
Where independent witnesses and documentary evidence are available, investigators must make genuine efforts to collect and preserve them.
5. Fair Trial Is a Constitutional Guarantee
Even in serious offences involving child victims, constitutional safeguards and due process cannot be ignored.
Case Details
- Case Title: Pratap Digal v. State of West Bengal & Another
- Court: Calcutta High Court
- Case Number: CRA (DB) No. 25 of 2025
- Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:811-DB
- Bench: Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray
- Date of Judgment: 22 May 2026
Conclusion
The Calcutta High Court’s ruling serves as a powerful reminder that criminal convictions must rest on credible evidence rather than assumptions. While laws such as the POCSO Act are designed to protect children from sexual abuse, courts must ensure that statutory presumptions do not erode the fundamental principles of fairness and due process.
The judgement underscores a vital principle of criminal justice: protecting victims and safeguarding the rights of the accused are not competing goals—they are complementary pillars of a just legal system.
