alleged to have been caused by the 3rd respondent. However, second enquiry was ordered wherein a different stand had been taken by the management as if the 3rd respondent should be punished and transferred to some other school run by the management. Even in the second enquiry report, there was no material produced to establish the nexus between the injuries said to have been caused by the 3rd respondent and the subsequent complications. Though the 3rd respondent was prosecuted in C.C.No.3052 of 2016 on the file of the XVIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, for the alleged offences u/s 341 and 323 r/w 34 of IPC along with another accused, that case was ended in acquittal by judgement dated 14.11.2019. The medical officer, who was examined before the trial court had clearly stated that on the alleged date of occurrence, the student was not admitted in any hospital and whereas he was admitted for some other complications only in the month of December, 2014. Thus, the medical evidence that were brought on record would also clearly indicate that the deceased student was suffering from autism from the birth. This court is also informed that the deceased student was also suffering from muscular dystrophy. These facts would clearly establish that there was no nexus between the injuries alleged to have been been caused by the 3rd respondent on the deceased student and the subsequent death of the injured. It
