Calcutta High Court Advocates Reform in Compensation for False Assault Claims

The Calcutta High Court suggests phased victim compensation to prevent fraudulent assault claims. They acquitted professor Pratap Digal, ordering compensation for his wrongful conviction. The court calls for structural reforms, emphasizing fair legal processes to deter false accusations motivated by financial gain.

Observing a concerning trend of false complaints in sexual assault and other criminal cases driven by the prospect of financial gain, the Calcutta High Court has proposed a phased disbursement of victim compensation to discourage fraudulent claims.

A division bench of the high court proposed the changes while acquitting a professor of the charge of raping a girl, and ordered a compensation of Rs 10 lakh to him, holding that his conviction in the trial court and incarceration caused irreparable damage to his reputation.

Making a policy recommendation to the West Bengal government for preventing the misuse of compensation, the high court said, 'While the victim compensation scheme is a noble instrument for rehabilitation, the court observes a concerning trend where the prospect of financial gain incentivises 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 division bench comprising Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray observed, passing the judgment on May 22.

The court proposed a framework where an interim payment would be made to the victim, which would amount to an initial disbursement of 25 per cent of the compensation amount.

It said the remaining 75 per cent would be 'deposited into an interest-bearing account in the name of the victim (or next of kin) upon conviction at the trial level and these funds would remain subject to the final adjudication of the appeal'.

'By implementing this staged disbursement, the temptation to file fraudulent cases can be significantly curtailed,' the division bench observed.

The court requested the principal secretary of the state government's Judicial Department to advise the relevant departments on this matter, while directing the secretary of the West Bengal State Legal Services Authority to review these recommendations for implementation.

'While children are indeed 'supremely important national assets', the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act cannot be weaponised to settle personal scores,' the bench observed.

The court also directed the chairman of the Bar Council of West Bengal and the director general of police to consider initiating disciplinary proceedings against the special public prosecutor and the investigating officer, respectively, for their biased role in securing the conviction of the accused, who spent four years in custody since the complaint was made in 2022.

Taking a dim view of the conviction, the division bench of the high court ordered the immediate release of Pratap Digal, a professor at Serampore College in Hooghly district, who had been sentenced to 20 years in prison by a special court in Serampore in 2024.

The division bench, holding that the trial judge had allowed miscarriage of justice against the appellant, observed, 'We are really very much disappointed'.

It held that by appointing a special public prosecutor who previously represented the appellant's estranged wife, an important witness in this case, being a complainant in a hostile 498A (domestic violence) case under the IPC against Digal, a clear risk of bias was created.

The estranged wife and their son were prosecution witnesses in the rape case.

The bench said that counsel Joydeep Mukherjee should have withdrawn or recused himself as special public prosecutor from the proceedings before the trial court.

The high court directed that if disciplinary proceeding is initiated against Mukherjee, the Bar Council of West Bengal will ensure that Digal is given 'a full and fair opportunity to depose and produce evidence regarding the conduct of the prosecutor, as the appellant is the primary person whose liberty and reputation were compromised by the aforesaid conflict of interest'.

The division bench, acquitting Digal, observed that the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses clearly demolished the prosecution case, which is based on 'unreliable testimonies' of the alleged victim girl, her elder sister, who was the complainant in the case, and also upon the 'biased deposition' of the estranged wife of the appellant and her son.

The bench held that the prosecution failed to cite important witnesses to strengthen its case and that they were not even summoned. It also noted that the medical report appears to be non-conclusive.

'The investigation made by the investigating officer, sub-inspector Nibedita Koley, is perfunctory, biased and unreliable on several counts,' the court observed.

The IO failed to take even rudimentary steps to verify the allegations against Digal, the court said.

Noting that evidence unequivocally demonstrates that Digal has endured over four years of wrongful incarceration, the high court said, 'This prolonged deprivation of liberty was directly precipitated by the gross incompetence of the Investigating Officer, S.I. Nibedita Koley, and the antagonistic, ethically deficient conduct of the Special Public Prosecutor, Joydeep Mukherjee.'

Holding that this 'illegal detention was entirely avoidable', the bench said, 'The profound agony, personal suffering, and irreparable damage to the appellant's reputation cannot be fully mitigated; however, the State must remain accountable for the systemic failures of its functionaries'.

The court directed the legal remembrancer and the principal secretary to the Judicial Department to remit Rs 10 lakh to Digal's account within three months of this judgment.

It also granted the state government liberty to recover the compensation amount from 'the delinquent officials – S.I. Nibedita Koley and Joydeep Mukherjee – in accordance with the law'.

The division bench said that under Section 9(5) of the National Legal Services Authority's (NALSA) Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes (2018), the State Legal Services Authority is empowered to initiate recovery proceedings if a trial or appellate court finds that the underlying criminal complaint was false.