IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. Badharudeen, J.
X – Petitioner
Versus
State Of Kerala, Represented By Public Prosecutor – Respondent
CRL.MC NO. 361 OF 2023
Decided On : 14-11-2024
(A) Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 19(1) - Quashment of proceedings - The petitioner, mother of the victim, was accused of failing to report her daughter's pregnancy under Section 19(1) - The court found that the mother's trauma and shock justified her delay in reporting, thus quashing the proceedings against her. (Paras 6 and 7)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 482 - The inherent power of the High Court to quash proceedings is invoked when the circumstances warrant it, particularly in cases where the accused is also a victim of the crime. (Paras 6 and 7)
ORDER :
A. Badharudeen, J.
The petitioner in this Crl.MC is the 2nd accused in S.C.No.929 of 2021 on the files of Special Court under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offence Act, 2012 (for short ‘PoCSO Act’, hereinafter) Thrissur. The petitioner seeks quashment of the above proceedings by invoking power under Section 482 of the code of Criminal Procedure.
2. In this matter, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under sections 4(1) r/w 3(a), 6(ii) r/w 5(j)(ii) of PoCSO Act and sections 540 and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’ hereinafter) by the 1st accused, and offence under section 21 r/w 19(1) of PoCSO Act by the 2nd accused, who is the mother of the victim. In a nut shell the prosecution allegation is that when the victim aged 17 years felt abdominal pain and there was no menstruation for a period of five months, the 2nd accused, mother took her to XXX Hospital, XXX, and the Gynaecologist therein advised her to have scan examination doubting PCOD. On scan examination, it was found that the victim had completed 18 weeks of pregnancy and she was immediately referred to Government Medical College for further management. But the doctor failed to inform the same to the police on 31.5.2021. Later, on 3.6.2021, the doctor informed the same to police treating the case as medico-legal case (MLC) and on 4.6.2021 FIR was registered recording the statement of the victim in the presence of the mother, the petitioner herein. The allegation against the petitioner, who is none other than the mother of the victim is that she failed to intimate the occurrence to the police in tune with the mandate of section 19(1) of POCSO Act, thereby she committed offence under section 21 r/w 19(1) of PoCSO Act.
3. While, seeking quashment of the proceedings against the 2nd accused, the mother, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is true that as stated by the doctor and as alleged by the prosecution, initially the minor was taken to XXX hospital on 31.5.2021 and on scan examination it was found that she was pregnant. Soon, she was referred to Government Medical College for further management and care. However, the victim was taken to a private hospital, and treated. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that on knowing the pregnancy of her unmarried minor girl aged 17 years, the petitioner become shocked and in the midst of shock, she was assigned with the task of saving the life of her daughter and thereby, the minor was taken to a private hospital and given proper treatment. While so, the doctor informed the matter to the police on 3.6.2021 and accordingly, without much delay the statement of the victim was recorded on 4.6.2021 in the presence of the petitioner and crime was registered on 4.6.2021 itself. The learned counsel pointed out the ordeal and trauma of the mother who also is forced to face trial along with the 1st accused who destroyed the life of her daughter, for an offence for which she has no mens-rea.
4. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, section 19(1) of PoCSO Act does not stipulate a specified time to provide the information regarding commission or apprehension that an offence under PoCSO Act is likely to be committed. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in cases where allegation of non-compliance of Section 19(1) is alleged against the parents of the victim, the mental strain as well as the desperating emotions that immediately wave through the mind of the parents as such are to be taken into consideration while addressing the question as to whether there is any deliberate omission in providing the information, on their part. According to the learned counsel, since the pregnancy was detected on 31.5.2021 and FIS was given on 4.6.2021, a delay of 4 days could not be the foundation to send the mother of victim to gallows who suffered a lot due to the trauma suffered by her daughter. Accordingly, it is submitted by
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....
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....
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.
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....
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....
Insufficient evidence to establish criminal liability under POCSO Act when both the accused and the witness had a duty to report, emphasizing the need for more than mere statements.
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....
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.