Shri.Ravi Ekka v. The State And ANR

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

[ CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR ] *** CRA/1/2026 Shri Ravi Ekka Vs.

The State and Another Mr. Siddhartha Singha ... for the appellant Mr. Sumit Kumar Karmakar ... for the State Mr. U. Partha Sarthi ... for the respondent no.2 February 04, 2026 [SR] Item No.03 This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated February 27/28, 2025, whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 by the Special Judge under POCSO Act, North and Middle Andaman, Mayabunder in Special POCSO S.T. No.01 of 2024 and was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for twenty years. The prosecution case appears to be that the appellant, being the survivor's own brother used to sexually abuse the survivor from time to time. The prosecution says that the survivor made a belated complaint only because she was afraid that the she would be harmed by her elder brother/appellant. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses. The defense did not examine any witness. The learned Trial Judge convicted the appellant.

We have seen the evidence on record. The survivor girl, the parents of the survivor girl, the independent witnesses who

were friends of the survivor girl, all turned hostile. The medical evidence does not support the prosecution case. We are at a loss to understand that on the basis of what material the learned Trial Judge returned the verdict of guilty. It appears that the only basis on which the learned Trial Judge held the appellant guilty is Section 29 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 which reads as follows:

"29. Presumption as to certain offences.-Where a person is prosecuted for committing or abetting or attempting to commit any offence under sections 3, 5, 7 and section 9 of this Act, the Special Court shall presume, that such person has committed or abetted or attempted to commit the offence, as the case may be unless the contrary is proved."

First of all, Section 29 cannot operate in vaccum. There must be some foundational facts. Secondly the provision talks of a presumption which is rebuttable in nature. The evidence on record, far from supporting the presumption, rebuts it. When there is no substantive piece of evidence on which the learned Trial Judge could have passed the order of conviction, merely on the basis of Section 29 of the Act, he ought not to have done so.

We are of the considered view that the conviction has no legs to stand on. Hence, we allow this appeal. The order of conviction is set aside. The appellant stands acquitted. We also put on record that the learned advocate appearing for the survivor girl says that he is instructed not to oppose this appeal.

Let the bail bond, if any, be discharged, unless he is wanted in connection with any other case.

The Department is directed to forward a copy of this order to the learned Trial Court as well as the Superintendent of the concerned Correctional Home respectively for information and necessary action.

Parties to act on the server copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Arijit Banerjee, J.) (Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)