In Brief
A school manager (appellant) was summoned by the trial court under Section 319 CrPC after a six-year-old student identified a person wearing spectacles as having assaulted her. The child's statement evolved across multiple recordings, initially naming only one teacher, later describing two attackers, and eventually identifying the appellant solely from photographs shown by her parents. The Supreme Court held that such inconsistent and evolving identification of the appellant, influenced by parental suggestion and the family's anger at school management, did not meet the high threshold required for invoking Section 319 CrPC. The appellant's summons order was set aside, as no prima facie case of direct involvement in the alleged offence was established against him.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.