No relief for doctor after court finds sufficient grounds in minor assault case
Mumbai: A special court in Mumbai has denied the discharge plea of a doctor arrested in 2025 in connection with a case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), citing that the material on record revealed sufficient grounds to proceed against her.
The doctor was arrested in July 2025 after Mumbai Police booked her alongside a former school teacher accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old boy. The prosecution's case is that the doctor, who was reportedly a friend of the teacher, prescribed medicines to the minor that were allegedly used to facilitate the co-accused to coerce him into submission.
The allegations relate to the prescription of medicines that were allegedly used to facilitate the sexual assault of a minor. The case has been registered under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), which contains stringent provisions and reverses the burden of proof at certain stages.
According to a report by The Indian Express, the police had first arrested the 40-year-old teacher on charges of sexually assaulting the minor at a school where she had previously been employed. During the investigation, the doctor was also named as an accused on the allegation that she facilitated the offence through medical intervention.
Seeking discharge, the doctor argued that there was no material linking her to the alleged offence. In her plea, she stated that she never knew or interacted with the victim and was unaware of any alleged relationship between the minor and the co-accused teacher until her arrest.
She further stated that she had no knowledge of the medicines in question and had never prescribed or administered any medicine to the boy. Her defence also included claims of alibi and absence of any overt act on her part.
The police opposed the discharge plea, whereas the victim did not file a reply before the court.
After observing the discharge application, the special court clarified that at the stage of discharge, the test is not whether the prosecution will ultimately prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, but whether a prima facie case exists requiring trial.
In its February 10 order, the court observed, “Therefore, pleas of false implication, absence of corroboration, or improbability of the incident cannot be considered at the discharge stage; such defences are matters for trial.”
The court further held that “The statement of the victim discloses involvement of this accused, thereby necessitating trial.”
It added that claims such as alibi and lack of overt act require examination of evidence and cross-examination during trial, and cannot form the basis for discharge at this preliminary stage.
In accordance with the court's order, the discharge plea was rejected, and the doctor will now face trial along with the co-accused.
