IMPORTANT POINT
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 for medical professionals.

ORDER :

1. 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 the