The Kerala High Court on Thursday, August 20, 2026, suspended the life sentence awarded to Padmarajan K., a former BJP leader, in connection with the Palathayi rape case. A Division Bench, comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice K.V. Jayakumar, allowed the application for sentence suspension filed by Padmarajan, subsequently enlarging him on conditional bail.
The case, registered as Crl.A No. 2327 of 2025, titled Padmarajan @ Pappan Mash v. State of Kerala & Anr., saw the High Court take a prima facie view that the victim's testimony presented numerous inconsistencies and appeared to be embellished and fanciful upon initial analysis. The bench also considered the proximity of the alleged scene of occurrence, a school toilet, to the classrooms.
Previously, in November of the preceding year, the Fast Track Special Court, Thalassery (Kannur), had found Padmarajan guilty of raping a fourth-standard student. At the time of the alleged incident, Padmarajan was employed as a Malayalam teacher at the U.P. School in Palathayi. The prosecution had alleged that Padmarajan committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault and rape on the ten-and-a-half-year-old victim on three separate occasions within the school toilet.
The trial court had convicted Padmarajan under various sections of the Indian Penal Code, including Sections 376AB, 376(2)(f), and 354B, as well as Sections 5(f), (l), and (m) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. He was sentenced to life imprisonment specifically for the offence under Section 376AB of the IPC.
In its assessment of the application for sentence suspension, the High Court noted significant discrepancies in the medical evidence presented. The bench observed that one of the doctors who examined the victim did not find any evidence indicative of sexual abuse. Conversely, a second doctor had opined that a hymen tear could have resulted from scratching with a finger, potentially due to a fungal infection. This divergence in medical opinion was a key factor considered by the Division Bench.
Furthermore, the High Court highlighted that the initial investigation conducted by the local police and a subsequent investigation undertaken by the Crime Branch had arrived at two distinct conclusions regarding the alleged sexual assault. This inconsistency in investigative findings contributed to the court's prima facie assessment of the case's merits.
The Division Bench explicitly stated its considered view that the contentions advanced by the counsel for the applicant were "weighty" and could not be dismissed cursorily. The High Court found prima facie merit in the arguments presented by the applicant's counsel, concluding that Padmarajan had established a compelling case on the merits of his appeal. While acknowledging that it was premature to render a conclusive finding on the applicant's claim of innocence, the court expressed conviction that an arguable case had been made out.
The bench further articulated its conviction that, concerning the applicant's conviction, there appeared to be "some infirmity in the order of conviction that renders the order of conviction prima facie erroneous." This observation formed the bedrock of the High Court's decision to suspend the sentence and grant conditional bail.
Advocates S. Rajeev, V. Vinay, M.S. Aneer, Sarath K.P., Anilkumar C.R., K.S. Kiran Krishnan, Dipa V., Akash Cherian Thomas, Azad Sunil, T.P. Aravind, Akshara S., and Maheswar Padickal represented the applicant in the appeal. Advocates Sooraj T. Elenjickal and Nanda Surendran appeared on behalf of the victim's mother, while Public Prosecutor Sareena George represented the State.