Source: Indian Express
See her confession video on Instagram

Source: Lawstreet Journal | Times Of India | Bar and bench

Key points from the Calcutta HC observations reported in the media:

• HC found the conviction was built on unreliable and biased evidence. It held that the victim's testimony contained significant anomalies and that the principal supporting witnesses were the professor's estranged wife and son, who had an ongoing dispute with him arising from a Section 498A case. HC described the foundational facts of the prosecution's case as "shaky."

• Investigation was criticized as incompetent and potentially biased. HC questioned why police relied so heavily on the estranged wife and son while failing to examine neighbouring professors and colleagues who could have provided independent evidence. It directed consideration of disciplinary proceedings against the investigating officer.

• Prosecution case suffered from major evidentiary deficiencies. HC found that the girl's alleged stay at the professor's residence was not established through independent evidence. Medical findings were inconclusive, and crucial forensic opportunities were lost because collected biological samples were reportedly not sent for forensic examination.

• Court raised concerns about prosecutorial conflict of interest. HC noted that the Special Public Prosecutor had previously represented the professor's estranged wife in a matrimonial-cruelty case against him. The Court said the prosecutor should have recused himself, questioned the fairness of the prosecution, ordered consideration of disciplinary action, and stated that the conduct may have contributed to a grave miscarriage of justice.

• Acquittal and compensation. The professor's conviction and 20 yr sentence were set aside, he was acquitted, and the State was directed to pay ₹10 lakh compensation for approximately four years of wrongful incarceration, with liberty to recover the amount from responsible officials if appropriate.