Calcutta high court quashes rape conviction of professor, orders Rs 10 lakh compensation for wrongful imprisonment

KOLKATA: Calcutta high court on May 22 directed State to give Rs 10 lakh compensation to a Serampore college professor–sentenced for 20 years for rape of a minor–as he had to serve more than four years imprisoned for the “systematic failures” of special public prosecutor Joydeep Mukherjee and and investigating officer SI Nibedita Koley.The 20 years sentence was quashed by Calcutta HC, which questioned, “Was it a fair trial given to an accused who was an academician and was running an NGO for the betterment of children?” The bench expressed “disappointment” at the trial court’s verdict.The money can be recovered from the two officers, Calcutta HC added. Considering Joydeep Mukherjee, who was the Special PP in the case and was also professor’s wife’s lawyer in a 498A case, the HC observed this as “professional misconduct” and directed the Bar Council chairman to take disciplinary proceedings against him and notify the Director of Directorate of Prosecution.The professor, during the Trial, had repeatedly requested for the special PP to be changed considering his previous involvement. In this case, ‘star witnesses’ of the prosecution was his estranged wife and son. The HC noted that he prosecuted the professor with “malice and vindictiveness.”As for the SI, investigating officer of the case, Calcutta HC director general of police, West Bengal, to initiate a disciplinary proceedings against her for”total ignorance of basic investigative protocols” in the case which led to the conviction of the professor on July 9, 2024 by a Serampore court for offences of rape by a trusted person, and aggravated sexual assault of a minor.The crux of the case was a woman who had filed a complaint on March 23, 2022 at Serampore women police station alleging that her 16-year-old sister was sent to live with the professor by her Mumbai resident father who had been physically violated multiple times by him. There were accusations of confinement, rape and administering of pills to the minor.The division bench, however, pointed to various lacunaes–IO’s stress upon just the accused’s wife and son as witnesses while not taking statements from others like professors’ neighbourhood, the register maintained at the society gate, and others. Vaginal swab not sent to the forensics and seizure of items from the accused’s house without his presence created more doubt in the Court’s mind.The discrepancy in the victim’s testimony was also noted. Moreover, the medical report showed no signs of rape injuries. Plus, the fact that there was an ongoing 498A case by the wife against the accused, and her lawyer was appointed as the special PP in the case pushing the accused to a disadvantageous position.“As the victim’s testimony is full of anomalies and the only supporting evidence comes from ‘star witnesses’ (the accused’s estranged wife and son) with a documented vendetta (the 498A case), the foundational facts themselves are shaky. A presumption cannot be used to fill a gap left by unreliable or coached evidence. Moreover, the fact that the appellant is a professor suggests that the collateral damage to his reputation and career is irreversible,” the HC held.The division bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha further proposed a staged disbursement of victim compensation scheme to curtail the “temptation” of filing a false rape case. The bench suggested initial disbursement of 25% of the compensation amount and remaining 75% should be released after conviction.The judicial department’s principal secretary was requested to advise the government departments and West Bengal State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) secretary was directed to review these recommendations.“While the Victim Compensation Scheme is a noble instrument for rehabilitation, the Court observes a concerning trend where the prospect of financial gain incentivizes unscrupulous individuals to lodge false complaints. To balance the necessity of victim support with the protection of innocent citizens, a more rigorous disbursement structure is required,” the bench held.