New Delhi, March 16 A court here has overturned 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 prescribed legal procedure.
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 had sexually assaulted the child for several weeks while transporting 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 of 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 that the conviction, the five-year rigorous jail term, and the fine of Rs 5,000 "are not sustainable under the law and are hereby set aside."
The sessions court stated that the JMFC had erred in passing a conviction judgment 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, according to the CrPC, the JMFC was not supposed to pass the conviction judgment, but merely record an 'opinion of guilt' before submitting the matter to the CJM.
Considering that CrPC Section 325 makes the magistrate's conviction judgment non-existent in the eyes of the 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 the 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 conviction judgment of the appellant on August 12, 2025, before handing over the case to the CJM for passing an appropriate order on sentence, instead of merely tendering an opinion of the 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 merely 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 conviction judgment.
It further remanded the matter to the CJM to hear the case afresh on merit. 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.