The Calcutta High Court has recently overturned the conviction of a college professor, who had been sentenced to 20 years in prison for allegedly raping a 16-year-old girl. The trial court’s decision was challenged by a Division Bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, who found that the professor, Pratap Digal, was potentially framed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) due to a conspiracy involving his estranged wife, Rita Soren, and their son.
Key Findings of the High Court
The Bench emphasized that the prosecution’s case was flawed due to unreliable testimonies and a lack of concrete evidence. The alleged victim’s testimony was riddled with inconsistencies, and the primary witnesses were found to have a vested interest due to an ongoing case under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with cruelty to a wife.
Justice Banerjee and Justice Ray noted that a presumption of guilt cannot be sustained on shaky foundational facts and unreliable evidence. Consequently, the court acquitted Digal and instructed the State to compensate him with ₹10 lakh within three months. The court also criticized the investigative process, pointing out that the police failed to gather corroborative evidence from unbiased sources, such as neighboring academics residing near Digal’s residence.
Disciplinary Actions and Alleged Bias
The court ordered the Director General of Police to consider disciplinary action against Sub Inspector Nibedita Koley for relying on biased witnesses. Additionally, the court highlighted the conflict of interest involving advocate Joydeep Mukherjee, the Special Public Prosecutor (SPP), who had previously represented Digal’s wife in the Section 498A case. Mukherjee’s failure to recuse himself was termed as professional misconduct, and the court called on the Bar Council of West Bengal to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him.
The court stated, “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.” This situation has resulted in Digal’s wrongful incarceration, which lasted over four years.
Case Background and Court’s Observations
The case, initiated in 2022, stemmed from allegations made by the victim’s sister, who claimed that the accused had exploited the victim sexually under the guise of educational mentorship. However, the High Court found that the alleged circumstances of the victim’s stay and her attempts to flee were unsubstantiated by independent evidence.
The court also criticized the police’s excessive reliance on testimonies from Digal’s estranged wife and son, questioning the investigative officer’s motives and knowledge of the familial disputes. Furthermore, the medical evidence was deemed inconclusive, as the collected samples were not sent for forensic examination.
Ultimately, the High Court’s decision to overturn the trial court’s guilty verdict was based on the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, which dismantled the prosecution’s case. The Bench concluded that the testimonies were biased and unreliable.
The court directed that the compensation awarded to Digal could be recovered from SI Koley and advocate Mukherjee, and granted Digal the right to seek damages through appropriate legal proceedings. The legal representation for the parties involved included Advocates Lord Chatterjee and M Chakraborty for the accused, Advocate Amit Ranjan Pati for the complainant, and Advocates Joydeep Roy and Baishali Chatterjee for the State.
