Kerala HC Suspends Life Sentence of School Teacher Convicted of POCSO Offences, Finds Prima Facie Infirmity in Conviction

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court suspended the life sentence of a Malayalam teacher convicted of aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 10-year-old student, finding arguable grounds on medical evidence and inconsistencies in the victim's testimony.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, on 20 August 2026 allowed an application for suspension of sentence filed by a school teacher convicted of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault on a 10-year-old student. The applicant, Padmarajan @ Pappan Mash, had been sentenced to imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life by the Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Thalassery, under Section 376AB of the Indian Penal Code, as well as rigorous imprisonment of 20 years each under Sections 5(f) and 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act. The Division Bench found a prima facie infirmity in the order of conviction, holding that the applicant had made out an arguable case warranting suspension of sentence pending the appeal.

The Conviction Below and the Application Before the High Court

The applicant was the sole accused in S.C. No. 472 of 2021 before the Special Judge, Fast Track Special Court, Thalassery. By judgment dated 14 November 2025, the Special Judge found him guilty of offences under Section 376(2)(f), Section 376AB, and Section 354B of the Indian Penal Code, as well as Sections 5(f), 5(l), and 5(m) read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act.

The prosecution's case was that the applicant, a Malayalam teacher at U.P. School, Palathai, had on a day before 15 January 2020, and thereafter on 15 January 2020 and 2 February 2020, taken the victim girl—aged 10 years and 6 months—to the school washroom and committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault, including by inserting his finger into her vagina and anus. The prosecution further alleged that the accused tied up the victim and placed cloth over her mouth during the assault. Crime No. 94/2020 was registered by Panoor Police Station on 17 March 2020.

The trial involved 40 prosecution witnesses, 98 prosecution exhibits, 15 material objects, 3 defence witnesses, and 155 defence exhibits. After evaluating this voluminous record, the Special Judge convicted the applicant and imposed the sentences described above, including a fine of Rs. 1,00,000 for the Section 376AB offence and Rs. 50,000 each for the POCSO offences, with default clauses.

The applicant approached the High Court in Crl.A No. 2327 of 2025, and filed Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2025 under Section 430(1) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking suspension of sentence pending the appeal.

Arguments on Behalf of the Applicant

Sri S. Rajeev, appearing for the applicant, submitted that the Special Judge convicted and sentenced the applicant without a proper evaluation of the evidence and had discarded vital contradictions and omissions in the prosecution case.

The primary attack was on the credibility of PW1, the victim. Counsel pointed out nine specific material contradictions in her evidence, including her statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. that she was tied up and cloth was placed over her mouth, which she denied when deposing before the court. The learned counsel also highlighted an inconsistency in identifying the place of occurrence: the victim initially identified one washroom, on the basis of which a scene mahazar and sketch plan were prepared, but a subsequent scene mahazar showed a different washroom—the teachers' washroom—as the place of occurrence. When confronted, the victim explained that she had deliberately identified the other room because the teachers' washroom was too small for people to believe the offence could have occurred there. Counsel contended that committing such acts on multiple occasions in a school bathroom within a few feet of the headmistress's room, while about 600 children were on the premises, was an impossibility.

Counsel pointed out that the investigation had been handled by three separate agencies. The initial probe was conducted by local police, then by a Detective Inspector of the Crime Branch, Kasaragod, supervised by a DySP. Neither of those investigations concluded that the applicant had committed the offence. A third investigating officer, PW39, a Deputy Superintendent of Police, was said to have taken over subsequently. Counsel alleged that this final investigation was politically motivated, pointing to the applicant's support for the Citizenship Amendment Bill on Facebook, which had provoked agitation demanding his transfer from the school.

On medical evidence, the applicant relied on the fact that PW9, Dr. Vasumathi, who examined the victim immediately after the alleged incident, noted no evidence of sexual assault in Ext. P16, but did note the presence of fungal infection. PW8, Dr. Poornima Prabhu, who issued Ext. P5, noted some manipulation in the vagina but also opined that the hymenal tear could have been caused by scratching with a finger on account of fungal infection.

Prosecution and Victim Counsel's Opposition

Smt. Sareena George, the Special Public Prosecutor, opposed the application, submitting that the Special Judge had evaluated the child's evidence in its proper perspective. She relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Preetpal Singh v. State of U.P., (2020) 8 SCC 645, to argue that unless a trial court's findings are palpably perverse, the appellate court should not suspend the sentence in cases of grave sexual abuse involving minors. She also submitted that the evidence was not to be re-evaluated in detail at the stage of considering suspension of sentence.

Sri Suraj T. Elanjickal, appearing for the mother of the victim, submitted that once an accused is convicted, the presumption of innocence no longer exists. He argued that the Sessions Judge had conducted a detailed evaluation of the evidence and correctly found the applicant guilty, and that the nature and gravity of the offences disentitled the applicant to suspension of sentence.

The Legal Framework: Post-Conviction Bail Under Section 389 / Section 430 BNSS

Justice K.V. Jayakumar, writing the order on behalf of the Bench, set out the legal framework at length. The application was filed under Section 430(1) of the BNSS, which is the corresponding provision to Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the new code. The Bench extracted and applied Section 389, which requires an appellate court to record reasons in writing before suspending the sentence of a convicted person, and specifically mandates an opportunity to the Public Prosecutor before releasing a convict sentenced to death, life imprisonment, or imprisonment of not less than ten years.

The Bench drew on two Supreme Court decisions. In Vasant Tukaram Pawar v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 281, the Supreme Court had held that suspension of sentence must not be passed as a matter of routine and requires careful consideration, with reasons recorded in writing. In Preet Pal Singh v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court drew a clear distinction between pre-conviction bail and post-conviction bail: the principle that “bail is the rule and jail is the exception” does not apply at the post-conviction stage, because a finding of guilt has been recorded and the presumption of innocence no longer operates. At the post-conviction stage, there must be strong and compelling reasons recorded in the order granting bail.

The Bench synthesised these principles into a clear formulation: the appellate court must evaluate the nature and gravity of the offence, the sentence imposed, prima facie merits of the appeal, and larger considerations of public interest and public confidence in the administration of criminal justice. No inflexible rule applies; each case must be examined on its own facts.

The Bench's Evaluation of Prima Facie Merits

Applying these principles, the Division Bench examined the impugned judgment and the materials placed before it. On a preliminary analysis of PW1's evidence, the Bench found that the victim “had an inconsistent, embellished, improved and fanciful version” about the alleged sexual abuse. The Bench noted that the scene of occurrence—the school toilet—was very close to classrooms in a school situated on a small extent of property, making the prosecution's account prima facie difficult to accept without scrutiny.

On medical evidence, the Bench noted that PW9, Dr. Vasumathi, who examined the victim first, had not noticed any evidence of sexual abuse in Ext. P16 and recorded only fungal infection. PW8, Dr. Poornima Prabhu, noted some manipulation in the vagina in Ext. P5, but also opined that the hymenal tear could have been caused by scratching due to fungal infection. The Bench found this medical picture to be equivocal.

The Bench also found it significant that the investigation had been conducted by three separate agencies, and that the initial two—the local police and the Crime Branch supervised by a DySP—had arrived at different conclusions regarding the alleged sexual assault.

The Bench concluded that the contentions advanced by the applicant's counsel were “weighty and cannot be brushed aside in a cursory manner.” It held that the applicant had made out a good case on merits and that the grounds urged were compelling. While declining to enter a conclusive finding on innocence at this stage, the Bench was satisfied that the conviction was prima facie erroneous and that an arguable case had been made out.

Order

The Division Bench allowed Crl.M.A. No. 1 of 2025 and directed that the applicant be enlarged on bail subject to the following conditions:

• The applicant shall execute a bond for Rs. 1,00,000 with two solvent sureties each for the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, Thalassery.
• The applicant shall not enter the revenue district in which the survivor resides, so as to prevent any intimidation, influence, interference, or unwarranted contact with the victim during the pendency of proceedings.
• The applicant shall not, directly or indirectly, contact the victim, her friends, or relatives, or attempt to communicate with or influence them. He shall not make any comment on social media, publish or circulate any material, or give any interview touching upon the facts of this case in a manner that may prejudice the victim's interests or the fair administration of justice.
• The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the High Court, and must seek advance orders if travel abroad becomes necessary for compelling reasons.
• Any violation of these conditions shall entitle the prosecution to seek cancellation of bail.