The High Court has suspended the conviction and sentence of a 60-year-old former science teacher found guilty under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act and the Indian Penal Code, granting him bail pending the disposal of his appeal.

The High Court observed that there were “fair chances of acquittal,” citing substantial improvements in the prosecution’s case, material contradictions, uncorroborated allegations, and an unexplained five-year delay in lodging the FIR.

The convict, a resident of Pernem, was convicted on May 4, 2026 by the trial court for raping a minor girl and sentenced to 11 years of rigorous imprisonment.

An FIR was registered at Pernem Police Station on June 15, 2020. The complainant alleged that in 2015, while she was a Class 10 student, the accused persuaded her to attend private remedial science classes, during which he allegedly took photographs and subjected her to repeated sexual assault until September 2019. She further alleged that he continued to call and blackmail her using the photographs.

Challenging the conviction and sentence, the convict filed an application seeking bail and suspension of his sentence. His counsel, Adv. Rohan Desai, argued that the trial court’s order was perverse, emphasising that the alleged incident occurred in 2015 while the FIR was filed five years later, without any explanation for the delay. It was also highlighted that the alleged video or photographic evidence was never made part of the charge sheet.

In its order, the High Court noted several glaring infirmities in the prosecution’s case. The Investigating Officer conceded that the victim had not initially stated in her complaint that the teacher clicked photographs while touching her or recorded videos during the act. The Court found these to be substantial improvements to her version. Despite claims of blackmail via calls and messages, no screenshots, call detail records, photographs, or videos were submitted with the charge sheet. The Investigating Officer admitted under cross-examination that there was no documentary evidence demonstrating communication between the victim and the teacher.

Taking into account that the convict was on bail during the trial without misusing his liberty, and considering that the pending appeal would likely take considerable time to be heard, the Court ordered his release.