New Delhi, Mar 16 A court here has set aside the conviction of a school van driver in a case of alleged sexual assault on a minor boy, holding that the trial court failed to follow the procedure prescribed under law.
According to the prosecution, the father of a seven-year-old boy complained to the police on December 11, 2011, that the school van driver sexually assaulted the child for several weeks while ferrying him to school.
The accused was convicted by Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) Payal Singh on August 12, 2025. He was sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5,000 by Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) Harshita Mishra on December 10, 2025.
The appeal against the conviction by the accused was allowed by Additional Sessions Judge Abhishek Goyal. In its judgment dated March 10, the court said the conviction, the five-year rigorous jail term and the fine of Rs 5,000 "are not sustainable in law and are hereby set aside".
The sessions court stated that the JMFC had erred in passing a judgment of conviction while referring the matter to the CJM for sentencing under Section 325 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).
Section 325 allows a Magistrate to refer a case to the CJM if they are not empowered to pass a sentence sufficiently severe.
The court stated that as per CrPC, the JMFC was not supposed to pass the judgment of conviction, but merely record an ‘opinion of guilt’ before submitting the matter to the CJM.
Considering that CrPC Section 325 makes the conviction judgment by the magistrate non-existent in the eyes of law, the CJM was supposed to have treated it as a 'mere opinion', and pass a fresh judgment, based on their independent findings upon appreciation of facts and circumstances brought on record.
The court also added that the CJM could admit fresh evidence in the case and was not obligated to abide by the JMFC's 'opinion of guilt'.
"The learned JMFC erred in passing the judgment of conviction of the appellant dated August 12, 2025, before making over the case to CJM for passing an appropriate order on sentence, instead of merely tendering an opinion of appellant’s guilt, if any, as mandated under law," the court said.
The judge further observed that the CJM also failed to follow the correct procedure and "erred in proceeding with simpliciter passing an order of sentence" on the basis of the magistrate's judgment.
The court also directed that the magistrate's earlier judgment be treated only as an opinion and not a judgment of conviction.
It further remanded the matter to the CJM to hear the case afresh on merits. It asked the CJM to hear the parties, recall witnesses if necessary, or take additional evidence before passing a fresh judgment in accordance with the law.
The accused has been directed to appear before the CJM on March 25 for further proceedings.
