The Calcutta High Court has upheld the conviction of a man found guilty under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, rejecting his challenge to a trial court judgment delivered more than two decades ago. Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das held that the victim’s evidence remained credible and trustworthy, despite shortcomings in the investigation and the absence of certain supporting witnesses.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a complaint lodged in October 1998 by a woman who alleged that the accused, a friend of her elder brother, forcibly had sexual relations with her when she was alone at home. According to the complaint, he later assured her that he would marry her. She claimed that the relationship continued on that assurance, resulting in her pregnancy and the birth of a child.
The woman alleged that despite repeated promises, the accused delayed marriage and ultimately refused to marry her. A criminal case was then registered, leading to a trial before the Additional Sessions Judge at Asansol.
The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC, prompting the present appeal before the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
The defence argued that the prosecution story suffered from serious inconsistencies. It pointed to the absence of important witnesses, lack of documentary proof regarding the victim’s age, non-production of certain medical records, and the failure to record the victim’s statement before a magistrate.
The State, however, contended that the delay in filing the complaint had been adequately explained and that the victim’s testimony consistently showed that she had been exploited and misled by repeated assurances of marriage.
Court’s Observations
Justice Das closely examined the evidence of the victim, her family members, and hospital records.
The Court noted that although there were shortcomings in the investigation, including the non-examination of some witnesses and the absence of certain medical documents, such deficiencies could not by themselves destroy an otherwise credible prosecution case.
Referring to Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that a conviction in a sexual offence case can be based solely on the testimony of the prosecutrix if it inspires confidence.
“The Court does not find any illegality or improbable reasoning assigned by the learned trial court while passing such order of conviction,”
the judgment observed.
The bench also took note of evidence indicating that the accused continued assuring the victim of marriage even after she became pregnant and later denied paternity.
According to the Court, the overall circumstances showed that the victim remained consistent on the core allegation and successfully withstood cross-examination.
“The victim throughout withstand the cross examination,”
the Court recorded while assessing the reliability of her testimony.
Decision
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court held that there was no reason to interfere with the conviction recorded by the trial court.
The Court affirmed the conviction and directed that the appellant’s bail bond stand cancelled. It also observed that the victim should not be denied the benefit of victim compensation merely because the incident occurred before the introduction of the present compensation framework under Section 357A CrPC.
Accordingly, the Court requested the State Legal Services Authority to take appropriate steps to ensure that the victim is able to avail benefits under the compensation scheme.
With these directions, the criminal appeal was dismissed and the trial court’s judgment was affirmed.
Case Details:
Case Title: Anil Kumar Gupta v. The State of West Bengal
Case Number: CRA 305 of 2004
Judge: Justice Chaitali Chatterjee Das
Decision Date: June 22, 2026
