Facts
The appellant, mother of an eight-year-old victim, alleged that her daughter was sexually assaulted by a senior student in the school in November 2019. The victim informed her elder sister, who informed the Head Girl. The Head Girl reported the incident to the school authorities. Instead of reporting the matter to the police or the victim's parents, the school authorities allegedly examined the child, held internal meetings, directed students not to disclose the incident, and delayed reporting. A charge-sheet was filed against the juvenile offender under S.376AB IPC and S.6 POCSO Act, and against the school authorities under S.176 IPC, S.201 IPC, S.120B IPC read with S.21(2) POCSO Act. The Trial Court discharged the school authorities, and the High Court affirmed the discharge.
Issues Framed
(a) Whether the police report disclosed a prima facie case against the school authorities for offences under S.176 IPC, S.201 IPC, S.120B IPC and S.21(2) POCSO Act.
(b) Whether the courts below applied the correct legal test while discharging the accused.
Court's Reasoning
(a) The Court reiterated that at the stage of discharge under Ss.227–228 CrPC, the Court assumes the prosecution material to be true and only examines whether it raises a grave suspicion. A mini trial or assessment of the probable defence is impermissible.
(b) Construing S.19 POCSO Act, the Court held that the expression "knowledge" does not require direct eyewitness knowledge. Information received from the child victim or other credible sources is sufficient to trigger the statutory duty to report. School authorities cannot conduct their own inquiry and decide whether the offence actually occurred before reporting it.
(c) The police report and statements under S.161 and S.164 CrPC indicated that the school authorities were informed of the allegation, examined the victim, held meetings, instructed students to remain silent and failed to report the incident. These materials created a grave suspicion regarding commission of the alleged offences and warranted a trial.
(d) The Trial Court and the High Court erred by evaluating contradictions, weighing the evidence and virtually determining innocence at the discharge stage instead of applying the settled prima facie standard.
Held
The appeal was allowed. The orders of the Trial Court and the High Court discharging the school authorities were set aside, and the Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law.
Ratio
"For the purposes of S.19 POCSO Act, 'knowledge' includes information received from the victim or other credible sources. A person receiving such information cannot substitute the statutory reporting mechanism by conducting a private inquiry; where the police report raises a grave suspicion, discharge is impermissible."
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 675
Decided on: 09 July 2026
Case Title: AAA v. Linda Sema & Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Manoj Misra, J.