Injustice done by the District court ignoring all the valid facts

I need an expert opinion about my father's case who happened to be a govt. lecturer in Chandigarh and one 3 years were pending for his retirement. He has been framed as an accused for misbehaving and harassing the girl student and convicted for 5 years under PoCso 10; however the facts are that the student wrote a dictated script under a reporter's guidance. In FIR the student has mentioned that Allegattion No 1. Whenever sir used to meet us he used to scold us while saying "Go back to your class NAHI TO DANDA CHADHA DUNGA". Lower court has translated the statement in English as: " I WILL INSERT THE ROD INTO" Facts observed during the trial (a.) 3 out of 4 girl students became hostile and said that they have signed the blank page which was used as a complaint letter for FIR. (b) Student1 said that sir used to tell us four while we used to go to the drink water; Student2 said that she never went for drinking water along with any other girl. She always used to go alone and there was a considerable distance from the place from where sir used to scold the students for being in que for drinking water. (c) Student1 mentioned that sir used to teach their class; however the fact was that my father is a Lect. of Economics and none of these students had Economics and their section was difference where Economics was not a subject, hence no chance of taking any Economics class for the section. Allegattion No 2. 2. "2012 mein SIR NE EK LADKI XX KI CHATI PE LAAT MARI THI" Lower court has translated the statement in English as Sir has kicked the breast of a girl. Facts observed during the trial (a.) The Investigating Officer has observed and mentioned in his report that there was no girl by the name of XX which was mentioned for their complaint. School does not have any such incident mentioned in their report book. Some other facts: 1. Call was made to 100 number and before reaching the Police Media was present in the school. 2. No statement was taken from the school principal. 3. No statement was obtained from other students from the section whom my father taught. 4. They ignored the departmental inquiry which exonerated my father from all charges. 5. No age proof was available for any student apart from Class Xth certificate, but court did not think of performing the Ossification Test. 6. No language expert was consulted for concluding the motive of the statement; Can a teacher be held under the charge for Thereatening to take life if he says "Class mein jao nahi to marunga" Will the court translate it as "GO back to your class otherwise I will kill you" 7. Statements of all the girls were contradicting, but still judgement was given against us. 8. None of the girl student mentioned that the teacher ever touched them still court framed him under POCSO Section 10 (Aggravated Sexual Assault) where Touching the private body part is a necessary ingredient. Please guide us to fight this injustice done by the lower court.