Seven years later, teacher walks free as Bombay high court clears rape conviction

Bombay High Court.

The Bombay High Court has quashed the conviction of a 43-year-old lecturer of biology who was accused of sexually abusing a minor girl in 2010. The case was registered against Firoz Rauttar at Kalamboli police station and the Alibaug sessions court had convicted him in 2013. The high court judge quashed the conviction order on March 23.

Rauttar, imprisoned in Kolhapur jail, was serving a life sentence. He had started teaching English to his inmates. "He is known as Rauttar sir in the jail," said his wife. Rauttar had been accused under Section 376(2)(f) (rape of a girl under 12 years of age) of the IPC. "I was sure that my husband could not outrage the modesty of anyone, including a girl child. It was the reason I fully supported him and we won the battle," added his wife.

Advocate Mohammad Shine, who appeared for Rauttar, said, "There is not an iota of doubt that sexual offences against women cause the greatest of trauma and pain and should be dealt with sternly. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that a false allegation of rape can be equally devastating, humiliating and cause irreparable damage to the accused and his family."

"Rauttar has been incarcerated for seven years, separated from his family and lost out on the early growing years of his son. I am happy that the Hon'ble Court has come to his rescue," advocate Shine added. "I hope he can pick from up from where he left and lead a life with dignity," he said.

Rauttar's wife told their seven-year-old son stories about his father while Rauttar was in jail. She said, "My son loves him a lot. He wants to become a good lawyer to save people who have been falsely implicated," said Rauttar's wife, who never told their relatives regarding his whereabouts to avoid social stigma.

Shine said, "My client was falsely implicated probably to protect the actual culprit who had been sexually abusing the girl child." He added, "The court appreciated the discrepancies and the material omissions in the prosecution's evidence. It further held that the versions of the defence witnesses could not be looked upon with suspicion."