MUMBAI: A special court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act has refused to discharge a West Bengal-based doctor accused of abetting the alleged sexual assault of a 17-year-old student by his teacher at a prominent school in the city.
Special judge Sabina A Malik rejected the doctor’s application, saying the material on record disclosed sufficient grounds to proceed against her.
The doctor, accused of prescribing anti-anxiety pills to the student and facilitating his sexual assault between January 2024 and February 2025, was arrested on July 18 last year for offences punishable under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the POCSO Act and the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. She was granted bail by the special court on July 31, 2025.
According to the prosecution, the 40-year-old female teacher lured the boy to five-star hotels, plied him with alcohol and then had sex with him on multiple occasions. The teacher has denied the allegations and claimed the relationship was consensual after the boy turned 16.
The doctor allegedly aided the teacher’s coercive conduct by persuading the boy to meet her and prescribing pills to him to reduce his anxiety.
The prosecution opposed the doctor’s discharge, relying on statements recorded under section 183 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and contending that both the informant and the victim had implicated the doctor.
The court framed the legal test applicable at the discharge stage, saying, “The test is not whether the prosecution will ultimately succeed in proving the charge, but whether there exists a prima facie case warranting trial.”
The court said that at this stage, it was “not required to weigh the evidence meticulously or conduct a mini-trial” and must determine whether the material, “if taken at face value, disclose[s] the ingredients of the alleged offences”.
Addressing the defence plea of alibi and absence of overt acts, the judge held that these were “matters requiring evidence and cross-examination during trial” and “not grounds for discharge at this preliminary stage”.
The court also noted the statutory presumptions under the POCSO Act, saying the legislature has “consciously incorporated presumptions… to protect child victims”, which shifts the burden onto the accused once the victim’s statement and supporting material are on record. Pleas of false implication or improbability “cannot be considered at the discharge stage; such defences are matters for trial”, the court said.
The defence relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dilawar Balu Kurane vs State of Maharashtra to argue that no grave suspicion arose against the doctor. But the special court held that the material on record did disclose involvement.
“Discharge is only permissible when the prosecution’s material, even if accepted in entirety, does not disclose any offence. In our case, the material does disclose involvement,” the court said.