Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD BENCH
RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR, J.
Dr. Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
Criminal Revision Petition No. 100169 of 2020
Decided on : 02-02-2024
POCSO Act - Sections 19, 21- Framing of Charges - The court discussed the provisions of Section 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, which mandate reporting of offences and punishment for failure to report or record a case. The court emphasized the requirement of 'knowledge' and the obligation to inform relevant authorities when aware of the commission of an offence under the Act. The court highlighted the interpretation of 'knowledge' and the absence of an obligation to investigate and gather knowledge. The judgment referenced a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dr. Sr. Tessy Jose and others v. State of Kerala, emphasizing the need for evidence to implicate a person and the requirement for grave suspicion. The court concluded that there was no evidence implicating the accused under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, and allowed the petition, setting aside the order of framing charges and discharging the accused of the said offences.
Fact of the Case:
The victim, a minor girl, alleged sexual assault and pregnancy by accused no.1, leading to the medical termination of pregnancy by accused no.2. The trial court ordered framing of charges against accused no.2 under Section 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, which was challenged by the petitioner.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence implicating accused no.2 for the offences under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, emphasizing the absence of 'knowledge' and the requirement for evidence to indicate grave suspicion.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the interpretation of 'knowledge' under the POCSO Act, the obligation to inform relevant authorities, and the requirement for evidence to implicate a person for an offence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for evidence to implicate a person and the requirement for grave suspicion, as highlighted in the decision of Dr. Sr. Tessy Jose and others v. State of Kerala. The court concluded that there was no evidence implicating accused no.2 for the offences under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act.
Final Decision: The petition filed by the petitioner was allowed, the order of framing charges against accused no.2 under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act was set aside, and the petitioner was discharged of the said offences.
ORDER :
Petitioner-accused No.2 has filed this petition being aggrieved by the orders passed by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge-FTSC -I , U.K., Karwar (Special Court for trial cases filed under POCSO Act) in Special Case No.53/2019 dated 4.8.2020 in so far as it relates to framing of charge against her under Section 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act.
2. The parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience.
3. Brief facts as set out before the trial Court are stated hereunder:
A complaint came to be filed by a victim-girl on 4.7.2019 alleging that, she is a minor girl aged 17 years four months. She is a student. She is the resident of the address stated in the complaint. Her date of birth is 1.2.2000. She belongs to Scheduled Caste. It is alleged in the complaint that, accused no.1 is working as a waiter in a Hotel and he is resident of Thambettu Machettu Village in Kundapura Taluk. Victim girl came to know accused no.1 in the month of October 2018 through face book. Thus, accused no.1 is her face book friend. They both had a mobile and Both exchanged their mobile numbers. because of persistent force by the accused no.1 to provide her mobile number. He made the victim girl to love him. He also assured to marry her. He pestered her to marry him and by pestering her, he took the victim girl in the month of January 2019 to her relative's house from KSRTC Bus Stand, Ankola. He took her to Thambettu Village in Kundapura Taluk and introduced to one Sujan Ram Poojary, his friends and sister Jalaja Poojary. For 20-25 days, he resided in the house of Jalaja Poojary. Though accused no.1 knew that, victim girl belongs to the scheduled caste, he promised her that he would marry her and against her consent and will, he had a physical sexual intercourse with her. Thus, accused no.1. committed sexual assault on the victim girl. In the month of February 2019, accused no.1 brought the complainant to Ankola Town and left her there. The victim girl came to know that she has become pregnant. Accused no.1 forced her to abort the foetus and otherwise, he is going to commit suicide. By force, the victim girl was taken to Kamala Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Ankola and consulted accused no.2 Gynecologist. The victim girl informed that she is not married. Though she was not consented to abort the foetus but, by force there was a abortion against the provisions of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (in short `the Act') of this victim girl. Thereafter, she lodged a complaint. Based upon that, a crime was registered by Ankola Police Station in Crime No.153/2019 on 13.6.2019 and the criminal law was set in motion.
4. The learned trial Court, on hearing both the side, passed an order in Special Case No.53/2019 dated 4.8.2020 allowing the application of accused No.2 i.e present petitioner filed under Section 239 of Cr.PC. read with 227 of Cr.PC. The said application came to be allowed in-part, thereby, the trial Court has discharged accused no.2 for the offences punishable under Section 313 of IPC and Section 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and Sec.3(1)(w) SC and ST Amendment Act, 2015 and Sec.3(2)(V) of SC and ST Act, 1989. It was ordered by the trial Court to frame the charges against accused no.2 i.e., petitioner herein for the offence punishable under Section 19 and 21 of POCSO Act. Being aggrieved by the said order of framing the charges against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences, this revision petition is filed by the petitioner seeking her discharge of the said offences also.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner-accused no.2 with all vehemence, in addition to the facts of the case submits that, the trial Court proceeded to frame charges against this petitioner for the offences under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act. This order of the trial Court is totally contrary to the facts and material placed on record. It is his submission that, the victim herself with her mot
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for evidence to implicate a person for an offence, emphasizing the need for grave suspicion and the interpretation of 'knowledge....
The court ruled that the obligation to report under the POCSO Act applies regardless of the accused's official capacity, and no sanction is needed for prosecution if the act is distinct from official....
The interpretation of 'knowledge' under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act requires direct awareness of the offense, and a reasonable timeframe must be considered for reporting obligations, particularly ....
Failure to provide information about offence to Police – A person can be supposed to know only where there is a direct appeal to his senses – There is no obligation on this person to investigate and ....
The prosecution must prove foundational facts in POCSO cases based on a preponderance of probability. Proper investigation, including conducting a potency test on the accused, is essential. The polic....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
