The Calcutta High Court set aside a 20-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under the POCSO Act, emphasizing that an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and the prosecution’s failure to prove foundational facts defeat the statutory presumption of guilt.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Shyam Chand Halder, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Judge, Special Court (POCSO Act), Port Blair, in Special Case No. 24 of 2020/ Special Trial No. 09 of 2021. The conviction was under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and a fine of Rs 5,000, with an additional six-month rigorous imprisonment for default. The appellant appealed the judgment dated 10 January 2022.
Key Facts
- 08 May 2020: A written statement (treated as a complaint) was recorded by the Station House Officer, Shaheed Dweep Police Station, by an informant (PW-2) who lived with her husband and two minor daughters in a rented house of Paresh Halder, Laxmanpur.
- August 2019: The alleged incident occurred; the appellant, father-in-law of the landlord, allegedly assaulted the elder daughter of the informant.
- 26 June 2020: The accused was arrested at Shaheed Dweep police station at 18:05 hours.
- 19 June 2020: The victim’s statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was recorded.
- 08 May 2020: Medico-legal examination of the victim was conducted; report filed as Exhibit-P-7.
- 10 January 2022: Trial Court sentenced the appellant to 20 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs 5,000.
- 05 August 2026: Appeal heard before the Calcutta High Court.
- 10 August 2026: Judgment delivered, setting aside the conviction.
Procedural History
- 08 May 2020: Complaint (Case No. 05/2020) lodged under Sections 5/6 of the POCSO Act.
- Investigation completed; charge sheet filed under Sections 5/6 POCSO Act.
- Trial Court: Charges framed under Section 6 POCSO Act and alternatively Section 376 IPC; appellant found guilty and sentenced.
- 05 August 2026: Appeal filed (CRA (DB)/7/2025) before the Calcutta High Court.
- 10 August 2026: High Court delivered judgment overturning the conviction.
Parties' Positions
- Appellant (Shyam Chand Halder): Argued that the nine-month delay in filing the FIR was unexplained, that the victim’s statements were contradictory, and that the prosecution failed to establish foundational facts required to invoke the presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act.
- Respondent (State): Contended that the delay was explained by fear and social stigma, that the victim’s testimony was corroborated by other witnesses, and that the statutory presumption justified the conviction.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought quashing of the conviction, setting aside of the sentence dated 10 January 2022, and immediate release from custody.
The Legal Issue
What is the appropriate approach when (a) there is an unexplained delay in lodging an FIR in a POCSO case, and (b) the prosecution has not established the foundational facts required to trigger the statutory presumption of culpable mental state under Section 29 of the POCSO Act?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
- The delay of nine months in filing the FIR is unexplained and, per State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Manoj Kumar Pandey, cannot be a ground for conviction in sexual offence cases.
- The victim’s statements before the police (Section 161) and before the court (Section 164) contain contradictions and omissions, violating the test under Section 162 Cr.P.C. as explained in Allauddin & Others v. State of Assam.
- The prosecution failed to prove the foundational facts necessary for the presumption under Section 29 and Section 30 of the POCSO Act, a requirement highlighted in In Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish.
For the Respondent
- The delay was justified by the victim’s fear and social stigma, which the State argued is a recognized explanation in sexual offence cases.
- The testimony of PW-1 (the victim) was corroborated by PW-2 (the mother) and PW-5 (the medical practitioner), satisfying the evidentiary threshold.
- The statutory presumption under Section 29 should apply once the prosecution establishes the actus reus, which the State claimed was done.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by reviewing the law on delay in filing FIRs in sexual offence matters. It quoted the Supreme Court’s observations in State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prem Singh that “delay in sexual offences cannot be equated with the case involving other offences” and that “unexplained delay” is the only factor that may raise suspicion. The Court found that the informant’s statement recorded on 08 May 2020 did not explain why the complaint was lodged eight months after the alleged incident in August 2019. Moreover, the prosecution did not cross-examine PW-2 on the delay, nor did PW-3 (the husband) address it, leaving the delay unexplained.
"Delay in every case cannot be a ground of suspicion. It can only be so when the delay is unexplained."
Next, the Court examined the credibility of the victim’s statements. It noted that the statements before the police (Section 161) and before the court (Section 164) differed on critical details, such as the timing of the incident and the sequence of events. Citing Allauddin the Court applied the test under Section 162 Cr.P.C., concluding that the inconsistencies amounted to contradictions that undermined the prosecution’s case.
The Court then turned to the statutory presumption under Section 29 of the POCSO Act. It reiterated that the presumption is “enabling” and does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden to prove the foundational facts of the offence. Relying on In Just Rights for Children Alliance v. S. Harish, the Court explained the “Rule or Principle of Foundational Facts” - the prosecution must first establish actus reus before the presumption of culpable mental state under Section 30 can be invoked. The Court found that the prosecution failed to prove any foundational fact, such as the presence of injury, the immediate reporting of the incident, or any corroborative medical evidence, especially since the medico-legal examination was conducted eight months after the alleged assault and revealed no external injuries.
Finally, the Court applied the principle from State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram that when two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted. Given the unexplained FIR delay, contradictory statements, and lack of foundational facts, the Court held that the conviction could not stand.
The Verdict
The Calcutta High Court set aside the judgment dated 10 January 2022 and the sentence of 20 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs 5,000 fine. The appellant Shyam Chand Halder was declared not guilty, ordered to be released immediately, and the trial court record was directed to be returned. No monetary penalty or further custodial direction was imposed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Unexplained FIR Delay Is Not a Substitute for Evidence
- Practitioners must be prepared to explain any delay in filing an FIR, especially in sexual offence cases, citing fear, stigma, or other recognized reasons.
- Courts will scrutinise the explanation; an unexplained delay can create reasonable doubt and defeat the prosecution’s case.
Contradictory Statements Must Be Anticipated
- Counsel should ensure that witness statements under Section 161 and Section 164 Cr.P.C. are consistent; any omission or contradiction may trigger the Section 162 test and be treated as a fatal inconsistency.
- Cross-examination should specifically address any disparities to mitigate the risk of the court deeming the testimony unreliable.
Prosecution Must Establish Foundational Facts Before Invoking Presumption
- The burden of proving actus reus lies squarely on the prosecution; only after establishing these facts can the presumption under Section 29/30 POCSO Act be invoked.
- Failure to produce contemporaneous medical reports, timely complaints, or corroborative evidence will likely result in the presumption being deemed inapplicable.
Practical Takeaways
- Document the reason for any delay in reporting sexual offences at the earliest stage.
- Preserve all medical and forensic evidence promptly; delayed examinations weaken the evidentiary chain.
- Anticipate and pre-empt contradictions by aligning police statements with court testimonies.
- In appellate practice, emphasize the lack of foundational facts to challenge statutory presumptions.
