Mumbai Court Denies Discharge Plea of Doctor in POCSO Case

Background of the Case

A special court in Mumbai has rejected the discharge plea of a doctor arrested in 2025 under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO). The court found sufficient evidence to proceed with the case against her. The doctor was taken into custody in July 2025, following an investigation by the Mumbai Police that also implicated a former school teacher accused of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old boy.

Allegations and Charges

The prosecution alleges that the doctor, who was acquainted with the teacher, prescribed medications to the minor that were used to coerce him into submission by the co-accused. The case falls under the stringent provisions of the POCSO Act, which includes provisions that reverse the burden of proof at certain stages of the trial.

Details of the Arrest

According to a report by The Indian Express, the teacher, aged 40, was initially arrested on charges of sexual assault at a previous school where she worked. During the course of the investigation, the doctor was named as an accused for her alleged role in facilitating the offence through medical means.

Doctor’s Defense and Court’s Rationale

In her discharge plea, the doctor contended that there was no evidence linking her to the alleged crime. She claimed to have never interacted with the victim and was unaware of any connection between the minor and the teacher until her arrest. Additionally, she asserted that she had no knowledge of the medications in question and had never prescribed any drugs to the boy. Her defense included assertions of an alibi and a lack of any overt action on her part.

The police opposed the discharge plea, while the victim did not submit a response to the court. The special court clarified that at the discharge stage, the primary concern is not whether the prosecution can prove the charges beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather if there exists a prima facie case that warrants a trial.

Court’s Decision

In its ruling on February 10, the court stated, “Therefore, pleas of false implication, absence of corroboration, or improbability of the incident cannot be considered at the discharge stage; such defenses are matters for trial.” The court emphasized that the victim’s statement indicated the involvement of the accused, necessitating a trial. It further noted that claims such as an alibi and the absence of overt acts require a thorough examination of evidence and cross-examination during the trial, which cannot justify a discharge at this preliminary juncture.

As a result of the court’s order, the discharge plea was denied, and the doctor will now stand trial alongside the co-accused.