KERALA HIGH COURT
A. Badharudeen, J.
Dr. Radhakrishna S. Naik – Petitioner
versus
State of Kerala – Respondent
Crl. Rev. Pet No.1064 of 2023
Decided on 10.7.2024
Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Section 19(1) – 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 – Provisions of Section 19(1) put legal obligation on a person to inform relevant authorities, when he/she has knowledge that an offence under the Act had been committed – Expression used is “knowledge” which means that some information received by such a person gives him/her knowledge about commission of crime – There is no obligation on this person to investigate and gather knowledge – If at all, appellants were not careful enough to find cause of pregnancy as victim was only 18 years of age at the time of delivery – But that would not be translated into criminality – In order to fasten criminal culpability upon a person for failure to report to Police regarding commission of offence under POCSO Act and to make omission to report the same, as an offence punishable under Section 19(1) of POCSO Act, there must be deliberate omission to be gathered fro the records – Reasonable time should be given to Doctors to inform such incidents to Police – There is no material to show willful omission on part of petitioner – Impugned order dismissing discharge application set aside and petitioner discharged from crime. (Paras 9, 10, 14 and 15)
Result: Revision Petition allowed.
Key Points: - The judgment holds that Section 19(1) imposes a duty to inform when there is knowledge that an offense under POCSO has been committed, and that "knowledge" does not require the informer to investigate, but requires a direct awareness of the offense (paras discussing knowledge interpretation and a reference to A.S. Krishnan case) (!) (!) . - The court emphasizes that a reasonable time must be given to doctors to inform authorities, and that mere delay (e.g., 7.15 hours) is not automatically disqualifying if there is no willful omission, especially where reporting occurs soon after the information is available or another doctor informs authorities (paras discussing reasonable time and hospital timing) (!) (!) (!) . - The matter cites that if information is reported promptly (e.g., CW10 informing police and crime being registered the next day), the second accused cannot be held liable for willful omission under Section 19(1) (paras explaining the sequence of events and the lack of willful omission) (!) . - The revision petition is allowed, and the discharge from crime is granted to the 2nd accused, with the impugned order set aside (paras 19, 20).
ORDER
This revision petition has been filed under Sections 397 and 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred as Cr.P.C. for convenience) challenging the order dated 05.09.2023 in Crl.M.P. No.330/2023 in S.C. No.542/2022 on the files of the Special Court for trial of cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (hereinafter referred as ‘POCSO Act’ for short) cases, Hosdurg. The petitioner herein is the 2nd accused in the above case.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor, in detail. Perused the case diary and relevant materials available.
3. In this matter, the petitioner herein is answerable for offence punishable under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, on the allegation that, he being a person, who examined the victim herein, though got an apprehension that an offence under the POCSO Act had been committed or had knowledge that such an offence had been committed, he failed to provide such information to the Special Juvenile Police or the local Police.
4. The prosecution allegation is that, when the victim, a minor aged 17 years, faced difficulty in urination, as advised by her friend, she reached Lakshmi Meghan Hospital on 21.04.2022, then the doctor therein examined her and found that she was pregnant. The father of the victim, who is responsible for the pregnancy threatened the victim, not to disclose this occurrence and stated that, if so, he would commit suicide. Later, the father took her to Manzoor Hospital, Kanhangad. A doctor examined her and stated that abortion could not be performed therein and directed to go to Mangalapuram. Accordingly, at 11.45 am on 22.04.2022 the victim along with her father reached Bhat’s Nursing Home, Mangalapuram to abort the pregnancy. Then, the 2nd accused advised to have blood test and also did see the scan report, suggestive of pregnancy. As advised by the 3rd accused, she was admitted in the hospital and a tablet was put on her vagina by the 3rd accused, so as to abort the pregnancy. The specific allegation against the 2nd accused/petitioner is that, even after obtaining the scan report and having knowledge regarding pregnancy of the minor victim, the same was not informed by the 2nd accused to the Police and accordingly the 2nd accused committed offence punishable under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act.
5. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioner/2nd accused, when the victim reached along with her father, the 2nd accused advised to have urine test and blood test and the same no way indicated pregnancy. It is further submitted that the prosecution failed to produce any documents or materials to show that the 2nd accused had apprehension regarding commission of offence under the POCSO Act or had knowledge that such an offence had been committed. Thus, the 2nd accused could not be penalized for the offence under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of the Apex Court reported in Dr. Sr. Tessy Jose v. State of Kerala [2018 (3) KLT 934 (SC)] to substantiate this point.
Therefore, he pressed for the relief sought for.
6. The learned Public Prosecutor would submit that, going by the blood test report, the age of the victim was shown as 17 years. Therefore, the petitioner had knowledge as contemplated under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. Therefore, the impugned order does not require any interference.
7. In this matter, in fact, in the blood report nothing stated suggesting pregnancy. It is discernible from the witness statement of CW10 that she had conducted scanning test of the minor and according to her, on knowing the pregnancy of the minor, aged 17 years, the same was informed to the Hosdurg Police on 21.04.2022 at about 7.00 pm. Later, when the victim was in Bhat’s Nursing Home on 22.04.2022 the Police reached there and brought the victim and father to the Police Station and FIR also registered on 22.04.2022 itself.
8. As pointed out by t
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 ....
Criminal liability under the POCSO Act requires a deliberate omission to report a crime, which was not established in this case.
Prompt and Proper Reporting – Prompt and proper reporting of the commission of offence under the POCSO Act is of utmost importance and its failure on coming to know about the commission of any offenc....
The court ruled that a mother's delay in reporting her daughter's pregnancy, due to trauma, does not constitute a deliberate failure under the PoCSO Act, justifying quashment of proceedings against h....
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 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....
Actual knowledge of an offense under the POCSO Act is required to impose liability, mere suspicion or inference is insufficient.
A doctor cannot be held criminally liable under the POCSO Act for failing to report a minor's pregnancy if the victim misrepresents her age as 18 years, and mere suspicion is insufficient for prosecu....
A one-day delay in reporting an offense under the PoCSO Act does not constitute willful omission, thus not attracting liability under Sections 19 and 21.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.