In Brief
In this criminal appeal, the Court examined whether the appellant, a member of the school's management, could be summoned for trial on charges of sexual assault of a child under Section 376(2) IPC and the POCSO Act. The child had identified an accused person by reference to spectacles, and the complainant (the child's father) was angry at the school's management. The Court found that this identification lacked corroboration and did not inspire confidence, and that the prosecution's own investigation had found no material to charge the appellant. Mere membership in the school's management and the complainant's anger were insufficient to establish a prima facie case. The Court allowed the appeal and quashed the summoning order.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.