Bombay High Court: While considering an application seeking suspension of sentence imposed by the Special Court (POCSO) (trial court) in a teacher-student POCSO case pending disposal of a criminal appeal, a Single Judge Bench of S.G. Chapalgaonkar, J., held that the record disclosed material contradictions, omissions and improvements in the prosecutrix’s version, coupled with absence of electronic evidence, thereby indicating fair chances of acquittal, and therefore, the Court suspended the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Also Watch: Touching Child’s Chest with Sexual Intent Is Sexual Assault Under POCSO: Ker HC
Background
The applicant (teacher) had been convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Sections 4, 376 and 506(ii), Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and Sections 4 and 8, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The prosecution case originated from an FIR registered on 15 June 2020. According to the allegations, the prosecutrix (student) was a Class 10th student in 2015 and attended extra science classes conducted by her teacher. It was alleged that after initially conducting classes properly, the teacher began touching her, clicked photographs, and subsequently had forcible sexual intercourse with her. The student alleged that the acts continued till 2 September 2019 and that she was subjected to threats based on photographs and videos possessed by the teacher.
Following investigation, a chargesheet was filed and the teacher was convicted and sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, including 11 years’ rigorous imprisonment for offences under Section 376 IPC and Section 4, POCSO Act. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence dated 4 May 2026, he preferred a criminal appeal before the High Court, and pending appeal, sought suspension of sentence and release on bail.
The teacher’s counsel contended that the judgment of conviction was perverse and unsustainable. It was argued that the first alleged incident dated back to 2015 whereas the FIR came to be registered only in June 2020 without any explanation for delay. It was contended that the even though the FIR referred about photographs and videos, the same were neither recovered nor made part of the charge sheet. It was also submitted that the teacher had remained on bail throughout the trial, was a senior citizen, and that the appeal was unlikely to be heard in the immediate future.
On the other hand, the prosecution and the student opposed the application, and argued that the offence was serious and that delay in lodging the FIR could not by itself discredit the prosecution case. It was submitted that the student’s deposition remained consistent regarding the incident and that corroboration was not required in such cases. The prosecution further emphasised the teacher-student relationship between the parties, contending that it increased the gravity of the offence. It was urged that the mere fact that the applicant was on bail during trial could not justify suspension of sentence after conviction.
Also Read: Meghalaya HC grants POCSO bail citing prolonged custody
Analysis
The Court observed that there were multiple contradictions and omissions in the student’s evidence. The Court noted that the student had deposed during trial that the teacher had videographed her in a compromised position, taken photographs and subsequently blackmailed her through such material. She also claimed to have requested him to delete those photographs before lodging the complaint. However, the investigating officer (IO) confirmed that these allegations were not part of the original complaint. The officer specifically admitted that the student had not stated that photographs were being taken while the teacher touched her and had also not stated that videos were recorded during sexual intercourse. The Court observed that these omissions demonstrated substantial improvements in her version.
The Court further noted that although the IO claimed to have recovered and examined the teacher’s mobile phone and noticed messages and photographs therein, neither such material nor screenshots thereof were brought on record. The IO also admitted that there was no documentary evidence establishing conversation or contact between the student and the teacher. Though mobile numbers allegedly used by the teacher were shown during investigation, the charge sheet was silent regarding those numbers. It was also admitted that the student’s family was never informed about the incident. The Court observed that the prosecution had failed to place on record any call history and apart from the student’s version, there was no evidence against the teacher. The Court further noted that the student’s friend who allegedly accompanied her to lodge the FIR did not support the victim’s version on material particulars.
The Court observed that the student was born on 16 October 1998 and the first alleged incident occurred in 2015, which was allegedly continued till September 2019, and yet the FIR was lodged only on 15 June 2020. The student admitted that she never disclosed the incidents to her parents, siblings, friends or anyone else. The Court observed that she had attained majority in 2016 and, if the incidents had continued until September 2019, there was no apparent reason why the FIR could not have been lodged earlier. The Court also noted that despite allegations regarding photographs, videos and threats of circulation on social media, nothing had been seized from either the student’s phone or the teacher’s phone and incorporated into the charge sheet.
The Court acknowledged that although Section 29, POCSO Act creates a presumption, but in the absence of foundational facts necessary to invoke such presumption, the applicant could not be held guilty. The Court observed that the trial court had ignored material contradictions and omissions in the student’s deposition and had not appropriately considered the issue of delay in lodging the FIR.
After considering the overall conceptus of the evidence, the reasoning recorded by the Sessions Court, the teacher’s conduct while on bail during trial and the likelihood of considerable delay in disposal of the appeal, the Court found that there were fair chances of acquittal.
Also Read: Quashment of POCSO FIR amid compromise and pregnancy: All HC
Decision
Consequently, while allowing the application, the Court suspended the sentence and directed release of the applicant on bail pending hearing of the criminal appeal, subject to execution of a personal bond with sureties and compliance with conditions relating to surrender of passport, restriction on leaving India and furnishing residential and contact details.
[Mahesh Chanekar v. State of Goa, 2026 SCC OnLine Bom 11691, decided on 4-9-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant: Rohan P. Desai with Ashay Priolkar and Ashwin Naik, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Swati Kamat Wagh, Additional Public Prosecutor, Prasad Kholkar, Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme.
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
