Calcutta HC Acquits Serampore College Professor After Four Years in Custody, Orders Rs 10 Lakh Compensation and Disciplinary Action
A Division Bench set aside conviction under Section 6 POCSO and Section 376(2)(f) IPC, finding foundational facts unproved, investigation biased, and the Special Public Prosecutor conflicted by a prior retainer for the appellant's estranged wife.
A Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, on 22 May 2026 acquitted Pratap Digal, a professor of theology at Serampore College, of charges under Sections 376(2)(f), 328, and 506 of the IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act. The trial court at Serampore had convicted him on 19 July 2024 and sentenced him to 20 years' imprisonment. The Division Bench found that the prosecution had not established the foundational facts required to trigger the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act, that the investigation was perfunctory and biased, and that the Special Public Prosecutor had prosecuted the case while labouring under a direct conflict of interest. The court ordered the State to pay Rs 10 lakh in compensation and directed disciplinary proceedings against both the Investigating Officer and the Special Public Prosecutor.
The Case Before the High Court
The FIR in Serampore Women P.S. Case No. 12 of 2022, dated 23 March 2022, was lodged by Moumita Naskar, the elder sister of the victim girl. She alleged that her sister, aged about 16 years, had been left in the custody of Pratap Digal by their father for the purpose of education. Digal was residing at Mac House, the professors' residential compound of Serampore College. According to the complaint, within four to five days of the victim's arrival, Digal established sexual relations with her on several occasions, administered medicine to her, confined her, and threatened her into silence. The victim eventually contacted her elder sister by phone, and was rescued on 23 March 2022 at around noon.
The trial court convicted Digal under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, relying on the testimony of seven prosecution witnesses and invoking the presumption of guilt under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Digal appealed, contending that the FIR and all supporting evidence were planted at the instance of his estranged wife and her son to settle scores arising from a Section 498A IPC case she had initiated against him in 2012, in which he had obtained bail.
Why the Statutory Presumption Could Not Be Invoked
The bench opened its analysis with the legal framework governing Section 29 of the POCSO Act. Drawing on Sambhubhai Raisangbhai Padhiyar v. State of Gujarat reported in (2025) 2 SCC 399, Debraj Dutta v. State of West Bengal and Another reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 664, and a single-judge ruling of the Calcutta High Court in Sahid Hossain Biswas v. State of West Bengal reported in 2017 SCC Online Cal 5023, the bench held that the presumption under Section 29 is not automatic. The prosecution must first establish foundational facts through cogent and reliable evidence before the reverse burden shifts to the accused.
The trial judge, the bench found, had quoted excerpts from the depositions of all seven prosecution witnesses and then moved directly to the conclusion that foundational facts were proved, without any independent analysis of whether those depositions were free from blemishes. The bench described this as a failure to discharge the court's duty to scrutinise the evidence in light of the specific features of the case.
Gaps in the Victim's Testimony and the Investigation
The bench identified four distinct categories of infirmity in the prosecution case.
Presence at Mac House not independently proved. The victim's stay in the professors' compound was a foundational fact. Mac House was a gated community with a security register recording all entrants. The Investigating Officer, Sub-Inspector Nibedita Koley, never seized that register. Had it been produced, it could have confirmed or contradicted the victim's account of her arrival with her father. The father himself, though he came to the police station, was never examined and was not cited as a chargesheet witness. The church priest Ranjit Behera, who allegedly facilitated the arrangement, was also not examined. No neighbouring professor or college authority was questioned.
Seizure lists not proved in accordance with law. Two seizures were conducted at the appellant's quarter. The first, on 23 March 2022 at 22:05 hours, recovered the victim's wearing apparel. The independent witness to that seizure, Sourav Dey, was not produced at trial and was not even summoned by the Special Public Prosecutor. The lady constable Nitu Bhakta Banerjee, who signed the medical report as recipient of the vaginal swab and was present at the first seizure, was not even cited as a chargesheet witness. The second seizure, on 28 March 2022 at 14:25 hours, took place five days after the first, from the same premises, during the appellant's police custody. It recovered bed sheets, a Bermuda, six passport-size photographs of the victim, a condom packet, contraceptive tablets, and vitamin capsules. Both seizure list witnesses on that occasion were police constables; no local respectable witness was present, in violation of the requirements under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which the IO claimed had led her to the articles, was never produced or proved before the trial court. The seized articles themselves, wearing apparel, bed sheets, contraceptives, were never produced as material exhibits before the trial court.
Medical evidence non-conclusive. The victim was examined at Serampore Walsh SD Hospital on 24 March 2022 at 1:25 a.m. The examining doctor, PW 5 Dr. Partha Chatterjee, found no visible injury on the labia, no active injury in the fourchette, no visible injury on the vaginal walls, and no foreign body inside the vagina. The only finding was an old tear (healed) in the hymen. The doctor stated that complete healing of injuries in the private parts takes at least 28 days. Given the victim's allegation of repeated forcible intercourse over several days, the absence of any fresh injury was difficult to reconcile. The medical report itself recorded that its conclusion was pending receipt of the forensic examination report on the vaginal swab. That swab was collected and handed to lady constable Nitu Bhakta Banerjee but was never sent for chemical or forensic examination. The IO prepared a seizure list for the swab but took no further steps. The bench found this omission particularly damaging given that the doctor had not found physical injury and the medical report was therefore non-conclusive.
Confinement claim contradicted by prosecution's own evidence. The prosecution alleged that the victim was kept in confinement and tried to flee but could not. Yet the victim's own cross-examination disclosed that on 21 March 2022 she was sent to a school where an aunt of hers worked, used that aunt's mobile phone to call her elder sister, and informed her of the assault. PW 2, the elder sister, confirmed that the victim went to a school on 21 March 2022. The bench found this directly contradicted the confinement narrative. If the victim was free to attend school and use a mobile phone on 21 March 2022, the claim that she was rescued from Mac House on 23 March 2022 at noon required explanation. The FIR was lodged only at 8:45 p.m. on 23 March 2022, and the medical examination took place at 1:25 a.m. on 24 March 2022, a gap the prosecution did not explain.
The “Star Witnesses”: Estranged Wife and Son
The prosecution's two principal corroborating witnesses were PW 3 Rita Soren (Digal), the appellant's estranged wife, and PW 4 Augustine Digal, their son. The bench examined their evidence at length and rejected it.
PW 3 had initiated a Section 498A IPC case against the appellant in 2012. Since then, the couple had lived separately. In her deposition in the present case, she described the appellant as having a pattern of bringing young girls to Mac House for massage and other purposes, and alleged that a maid servant had become pregnant at his instance. None of these facts appeared in her 2012 complaint under Section 498A. She explained this by saying she lacked courage and that her son was a minor at the time. The bench found this explanation implausible: her mother, brother, elder sister, and other relatives were all living in or near the Serampore College campus at the relevant time. The IO had also stated in cross-examination that PW 3 had not told her that PW 4 had seen the victim in the appellant's quarter. PW 3 had therefore improved her version during trial.
PW 4 deposed that on the night of 23 March 2022, after being informed by the Mac House watchman that his father had been arrested, he went to Serampore Women Police Station, where his father confessed to him that he had sexual intercourse with the victim once. The IO, however, stated in cross-examination that PW 4 had not told her this. The arrest memo of 23 March 2022 showed the column for close relatives of the arrested person as blank, there was no record of PW 4 having appeared at the police station that night. The bench held that the alleged extra-judicial confession had no evidentiary basis. Both PW 3 and PW 4 were found to be tainted, biased, and highly interested witnesses whose depositions could not be relied upon.
The bench also noted that all three witnesses, the victim, PW 3, and PW 4, had visited the police station before making their statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Judicial Magistrate. PW 4 admitted in cross-examination that he made his statement to the IO on the same day he made his statement before the Magistrate, and that the IO's statement came first. The bench raised the question whether the Section 164 statements were free and fair.
Prosecutorial Conflict of Interest and Professional Misconduct
The bench reserved its sharpest observations for the Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Joydeep Mukherjee. The court found that he had previously represented PW 3, the appellant's estranged wife, in the Section 498A IPC proceedings against the same accused. In the present case, PW 3 was a star prosecution witness. The Special Public Prosecutor was therefore tasked with examining a witness whose interests he had previously served, in a case against the same person he had previously opposed.
The bench held that a Public Prosecutor is an officer of the court whose duty is to seek justice, not merely a conviction. Citing Mukul Dalal v. Union of India reported in (1988) 3 SCC 144, the court held that a prosecutor must remain detached and independent. The appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor with a pre-existing antagonistic interest against the accused created a clear risk of bias and compromised the fairness of the entire trial.
The bench found that the combination of a reverse-burden statute (Section 29 of the POCSO Act) and an interested prosecutor was a dangerous mix for civil liberties. It concluded that the Special Public Prosecutor had prosecuted the appellant with malice and vindictiveness, in total violation of professional ethics, and that his conduct amounted to serious professional misconduct. The court directed the Chairman of the Bar Council of West Bengal to immediately consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against Mr. Joydeep Mukherjee, with the Director, Directorate of Prosecution also to be notified.
The bench further directed that if disciplinary proceedings were initiated, the Bar Council must treat the appellant as an essential party to the inquiry and ensure he was given a full and fair opportunity to depose and produce evidence regarding the prosecutor's conduct, since he was the primary person whose liberty and reputation had been compromised.
Directions on Compensation and Recovery
The bench found that Pratap Digal had spent over four years in wrongful incarceration. It held that this prolonged deprivation of liberty was directly caused by the gross incompetence of S.I. Nibedita Koley and the antagonistic conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor, and that it was entirely avoidable had the State's officers acted with basic professional diligence.
The court directed the Legal Remembrancer and the Principal Secretary to the Government of West Bengal (Judicial Department) to remit Rs 10 lakh to the appellant's account within three months of the judgment. The Government of West Bengal was granted liberty to recover this amount from S.I. Nibedita Koley and Mr. Joydeep Mukherjee in accordance with law. The appellant was also given liberty to take appropriate legal measures against PW 3 and PW 4 for damages.
On the investigation, the bench directed the Director General of Police, West Bengal, to immediately consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against S.I. Nibedita Koley in light of the observations in the judgment. A compliance report was directed to be submitted to the Registrar General of the High Court at Calcutta within 15 days of receipt of the judgment.
Policy Recommendation on Victim Compensation Disbursement
The bench also addressed what it described as a concerning trend of the victim compensation scheme being misused to incentivise false complaints. It noted Section 9(5) of the NALSA Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes (2018), which empowers the State Legal Services Authority to initiate recovery proceedings where a trial or appellate court finds the underlying complaint was false.
The court proposed a staged disbursement framework: an initial payment of 25 per cent of the compensation amount upon complaint, with the remaining 75 per cent held in an interest-bearing escrow account in the victim's name upon conviction at trial, to be released only upon final adjudication of any appeal. The Principal Secretary, Government of West Bengal (Judicial Department) was requested to advise relevant departments on this framework, and the Secretary of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority was directed to review the recommendations for implementation.
Outcome
The Division Bench set aside the judgment of conviction dated 19 July 2024 and the order of sentence dated 20 July 2024 passed by the Additional Special Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge, 1st Court, Serampore in ST(P) 24(08)/2022. Pratap Digal was acquitted of all charges under Sections 376(2)(f), 328, and 506 IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, and directed to be released from custody immediately if not wanted in any other case.
The Registrar General of the High Court at Calcutta was directed to send copies of the judgment to the Director General of Police, West Bengal; the Chairman of the West Bengal Bar Council; the Legal Remembrancer; the Principal Secretary, Judicial Department; the Secretary, West Bengal State Legal Services Authority; the District Judge and District Magistrate, Hooghly; and the Superintendent of the concerned Correctional Home. CRA (DB) No. 25 of 2025 was disposed of.