Combination Of Reverse Burden Statute & “Interested” Prosecutor A Dangerous Mix For Civil Liberties: Calcutta High Court Acquits POCSO Accused Professor

The Court also expressed serious concern over the fairness of the prosecution, observing that the appointment of a Special Public Prosecutor who had previously represented the accused’s estranged wife in separate matrimonial proceedings created a reasonable apprehension affecting the appearance of impartiality in the trial. Reiterating that a public prosecutor’s duty is to secure justice and not merely a conviction, the Bench directed consideration of disciplinary proceedings against both the Special Public Prosecutor and the Investigating Officer (IO).

Further, noting that the appellant had remained in custody for over four years, the Court further directed the State to pay ₹10 lakh as compensation within three months, with liberty to recover the amount from the concerned officials in accordance with law.

A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray observed, “While Section 29 creates a ‘presumption of guilt’, it is a rebuttable presumption. The Supreme Court has clarified (notably in provisions regarding reverse burden) that the prosecution must first prove the "foundational facts" beyond reasonable doubt before the presumption kicks in. As the victim’s testimony is full of anomalies and the only supporting evidence comes from ‘star witnesses’ 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…The combination of a ‘reverse burden’ statute (Section 29) and an ‘interested’ prosecutor is a dangerous mix for civil liberties.”.

“The facts presented above raise serious doubts about the prosecution's impartiality and the appellant’s right to a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution. In India’s legal system, a Public Prosecutor is an officer of the court—not a spokesperson for the complainant. His/her duty is to seek justice, not just a conviction”.

Advocate Lord Chatterjee appeared for the appellant, Advocate Amit Ranjan Pati appeared for the de-facto complainant and Advocate Joydeep Roy appeared for the respondent.

The Bench was hearing a criminal appeal filed by Professor Pratap Digal challenging his conviction under Sections 376(2)(f), 328 and 506 IPC and Section 6 POCSO Act arising out of a 2022 case.

According to the prosecution, the victim, then aged about sixteen years, had been brought to the appellant’s residence at Mac House near Serampore College on the assurance of educational assistance and was thereafter subjected to sexual assault.

The prosecution relied primarily on the testimony of the victim, her elder sister, the appellant’s estranged wife and their son. The trial court convicted the appellant in July 19, 2024, following which he approached the High Court in appeal.

Reappreciating the evidence, the High Court found multiple material improvements and inconsistencies in the testimonies of key prosecution witnesses. The Bench noted that no independent witness from the locality was examined to establish the victim’s alleged stay at Mac House; seizure witnesses were not properly examined; seizure lists were not proved in accordance with law; and although vaginal swabs were collected, they were not sent for forensic examination.

“…Moreover, the fact that the appellant is a professor suggests that the collateral damage to his reputation and career is irreversible. If the Special Public Prosecutor—acting with a pre-existing antagonistic interest—pushed for a conviction based on a presumption while knowing the evidence was weak, it elevates "professional misconduct" to a malicious prosecution. 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, resulting in the four-year incarceration of an academician”, it said.

The medical evidence was also found inconclusive, therefore, in these circumstances, the Court held that the prosecution failed to establish foundational facts necessary to trigger the statutory presumption under Section 29 POCSO Act. The Bench observed that a reverse burden provision cannot be employed to fill gaps left by unreliable evidence or a deficient investigation.

“…We find that the conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor, Mr. Joydeep Mukherjee, amounts to serious professional misconduct. By prosecuting the appellant with malice and vindictiveness, he has acted in total violation of professional ethics. Accordingly, we direct the Chairman of the Bar Council of West Bengal to immediately consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. The Director, Directorate of Prosecution be also notified.

By appointing a Special Public Prosecutor who previously represented the wife, an important witness in this case, being a complainant in a hostile 498A IPC case against the same accused, a clear risk of bias was created. Because this prosecutor is now tasked with questioning the wife as a 'star witness,' his professional interests are naturally tied to her success. Under the 'Independent Officer' rule and precedents like Mukul Dalal v. Union of India reported in (1988) 3 SCC 144 a prosecutor must remain detached. If an accused has a legitimate reason to fear that the prosecutor is not neutral, the fairness of the entire trial is compromised.

Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence and acquitted the appellant of all charges, directing his immediate release if not required in any other case.

The Bench also directed the Government of West Bengal to pay compensation of ₹10 lakh to the appellant within three months and requested the Director General of Police, West Bengal, and the Bar Council of West Bengal to consider appropriate action in light of the observations made in the judgment.

Case Title: Pratap Digal v. State of West Bengal & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2026:CHC-AS:811-DB)

Appearances:

Appellant: Lord Chatterjee, M. Chakraborty, Advocates.

Respondents: Amit Ranjan Pati, Joydeep Roy, Baishali Chatterjee, Advocates.

Click here to read/download the Judgment