Cops negligence no reason for disbelief in woman for sex crime: HC
Times of India | 29 April 2025
123 Kolkata: Investigation authority's negligence cannot be a reason for disbelieving a woman who alleges to be victim of sexual harassment, Calcutta high court recently held in a 28-year-old attempt-to-rape case while upholding the conviction of the accused.
"Investigating Officer who has admitted in his evidence that he collected the injury report and then submitted the charge sheet but he did not seize anything from the place of occurence. No injury report was exhibited in this case. The negligence on the part of the investigating authority cannot be the reason for disbelieving the case of a lady who alleges to be the victim of sexual harassment. Interestingly the I.O went to the spot and despite having a complaint in the nature of commission of an offence against a woman did not seize the wearing apparels and despite collecting the injury report the prosecution did not take any initiative to prove the same by summoning the treating doctor," Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) held on April 25.
You Can Also Check: Kolkata AQI | Weather in Kolkata | Bank Holidays in Kolkata | Public Holidays in Kolkata
The convict appealed against the 3.5-year sentence awarded by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Kandi, Murshidabad, in 2006 for the incident which took place on Feb 6, 1998. The victim, who was living with her parents due to matrimonial discord, went to the sugarcane fields to relieve herself when she was picked up by the convict. According to the victim, he groped her and attempted rape, and he had to flee after people started coming to the spot upon hearing the victim's scream. A case was filed at Burwan police station on Feb 8, 1998.
The counsel for the convict claimed he was falsely implicated and pointed out various lapses in the prosecution evidence. It was claimed that the trial court passed the order solely on the basis of evidence adduced by the defacto complainant in the absence of an injury report or evidence from any doctor. During the hearing, it also surfaced that not only was the injury report not annexed by the IO, but the torn saree and other evidence were also not collected from the place of occurrence.
But Justice Chatterjee (Das) held: "The negligence of the I.O not to seize the wearing apparels of the victim does not ipso facto makes the case of the victim or prosecution unbelievable when all the ingredients under section 354 IPC (assault or use of criminal force on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty) has been well established beyond all reasonable doubts."
Regarding the injury report, the judge stated that while it would not be a "correct approach" to rely on an injury report without it being proved, when the incident is against a village lady and the prosecution has not cited the doctor as a charge-sheeted witness to prove the report collected by the IO, the court has no alternative but to take judicial notice of the report to "unearth the truth and/or lend assurance to the testimony of the victim."
The defence tried to punch holes by stating that the FIR did not include the facts that the victim spoke of before the court, which included the convict having taken off his lungi before disrobing her and then putting it in her mouth to ensure she didn't scream. Other missing facts pointed out were who wrote the complaint or that her apparels were torn due to the scuffle. In this, the judge held that the FIR is not an encyclopedia that will have all the minute details.
"The court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the victim is a village lady and had to go to the field to attend nature's call, having marital discord and living at her father's place, and therefore how difficult it would be to gather such courage to raise a voice against a co-villager," the judge observed.
Kolkata: Investigation authority's negligence cannot be a reason for disbelieving a woman who alleges to be victim of sexual harassment, Calcutta high court recently held in a 28-year-old attempt-to-rape case while upholding the conviction of the accused.
"Investigating Officer who has admitted in his evidence that he collected the injury report and then submitted the charge sheet but he did not seize anything from the place of occurence. No injury report was exhibited in this case. The negligence on the part of the investigating authority cannot be the reason for disbelieving the case of a lady who alleges to be the victim of sexual harassment. Interestingly the I.O went to the spot and despite having a complaint in the nature of commission of an offence against a woman did not seize the wearing apparels and despite collecting the injury report the prosecution did not take any initiative to prove the same by summoning the treating doctor," Justice Chaitali Chatterjee (Das) held on April 25.
The convict appealed against the 3.5-year sentence awarded by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Kandi, Murshidabad, in 2006 for the incident which took place on Feb 6, 1998. The victim, who was living with her parents due to matrimonial discord, went to the sugarcane fields to relieve herself when she was picked up by the convict. According to the victim, he groped her and attempted rape, and he had to flee after people started coming to the spot upon hearing the victim's scream. A case was filed at Burwan police station on Feb 8, 1998.
The counsel for the convict claimed he was falsely implicated and pointed out various lapses in the prosecution evidence. It was claimed that the trial court passed the order solely on the basis of evidence adduced by the defacto complainant in the absence of an injury report or evidence from any doctor. During the hearing, it also surfaced that not only was the injury report not annexed by the IO, but the torn saree and other evidence were also not collected from the place of occurrence.
But Justice Chatterjee (Das) held: "The negligence of the I.O not to seize the wearing apparels of the victim does not ipso facto makes the case of the victim or prosecution unbelievable when all the ingredients under section 354 IPC (assault or use of criminal force on a woman with the intent to outrage her modesty) has been well established beyond all reasonable doubts."
Regarding the injury report, the judge stated that while it would not be a "correct approach" to rely on an injury report without it being proved, when the incident is against a village lady and the prosecution has not cited the doctor as a charge-sheeted witness to prove the report collected by the IO, the court has no alternative but to take judicial notice of the report to "unearth the truth and/or lend assurance to the testimony of the victim."
The defence tried to punch holes by stating that the FIR did not include the facts that the victim spoke of before the court, which included the convict having taken off his lungi before disrobing her and then putting it in her mouth to ensure she didn't scream. Other missing facts pointed out were who wrote the complaint or that her apparels were torn due to the scuffle. In this, the judge held that the FIR is not an encyclopedia that will have all the minute details.
"The court cannot be oblivious to the fact that the victim is a village lady and had to go to the field to attend nature's call, having marital discord and living at her father's place, and therefore how difficult it would be to gather such courage to raise a voice against a co-villager," the judge observed.