Disposed

Ananta Ray v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Calcutta HC20 Dec 2021CRR/134/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Calcutta High Court disposed of a revision against bail and DNA test rejections in a POCSO case. The court held that pregnancy or birth is not a sine qua non for rape charges and allowed renewal of DNA test prayer if a birth report is filed.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to renew prayer for DNA test under Section 315 Cr.P.C. if a report regarding birth of the child is filed.

Ananta Ray Vs State of West Bengal and Anr. — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Calcutta HC (2021)

¶1

20.12.2021 Court No.2 Sl no. 15. CP

¶2

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT

¶3

IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

C.R.R. 134 of 2021

¶5

In the matter of : Ananta Ray

¶6

…… Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Uday Shankar Chatterjee Mr. Gobinda Ch. Roy Mr. D. Kundu

¶8

… for the Petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Ld. A.P.P.

¶10

Mr. Arun Kr. Sarkar

¶11

… for the State.

¶12

Affidavit of service sent by e-mail is taken on record. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 2.

¶13

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated April 20, 2021, passed by the learned Judge, POCSO Court, Cooch Behar in POCSO Case No. 03 of 2021. By the said order, the prayers for bail and DNA test were rejected. The learned court below was of the view that at the stage when there was nothing on record to show that a child was born, the question of having a DNA test of the child to ascertain the paternity of the petitioner, did not arise. The allegation against the petitioner is commission of an offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012. The investigation has culminated in the filing of a chargesheet before the learned court below and the trial is pending before the learned Judge, POCSO Court, Cooch-Behar.

¶14

¶15

The contention of the complainant was that the petitioner had raped the victim, her daughter and the victim had conceived. The petitioner filed an application for DNA test. The learned court below rejected the said application on the ground that there was nothing either on record or in the pleadings to show that a child was actually conceived and born. Hence, at the relevant point of time, the learned court below rejected the petitioner’s application for DNA test.

¶16

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that there is no reflection of this aspect in the records of the investigation and in the case diary. The charge-sheet also does not contain any reflection of the fact that a child was born out of the alleged incident of rape.

¶17

As it is the submission of the learned Additional Pubic Prosecutor that the investigation is complete and charge-sheet has been filed and that the case is now ready for trial, the prayer of the petitioner to allow the DNA test at this stage, when the records of the investigation do not reflect the factum of a child being born, cannot be allowed.

¶18

The prayer of Mr. Chatterjee to direct the investigating agency to file a report before this Court with regard to the allegation of pregnancy also cannot be allowed. Birth of a child or factum of pregnancy is not a sine qua non to prove the charge of rape. It is for the prosecution to decide how the charge of rape shall be proved. The charge-sheet has already been filed.

¶19

¶20

The petitioner shall be at liberty to file an application before the learned Court below for a direction upon the investigating agency to investigate further on this issue and the learned Court below shall pass necessary orders in accordance with law as the learned Court deems fit. The petitioner may renew his prayer for DNA test under Section 315 of Cr.P.C. or if a report is filed by the authority containing the factum of birth of a child to the victim girl.

¶21

Revisional application is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶22

There shall be no order as to costs.

¶23

Parties are to act on the server copy of this order.

¶24

(Shampa Sarkar, J.)

Ananta Ray v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananta Ray v. State of West Bengal and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mithu Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr.

Rakesh Agarwal Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Kamlesh Singh @ Kamalesh Singh Vs the State of West Bengal and Anr.

Pranab Sharma Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nilima Dan Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.

Nuran Nehar Begum Vs the State of West Bengal and Ors.