Actual knowledge of an offense under the POCSO Act is required to impose liability, mere suspicion or inference is insufficient.

A.K.SIKRI, J.

After hearing this matter on 1^st August, 2018, following order was passed:

“Leave granted.

We have heard the arguments.

We are informed that the trial is in progress today before the trial court. Since, there is not enough time to dictate the judgment, we are allowing this appeal so that the decision is conveyed to the trial court. Reasons to follow.

A copy of this order may be provided to the counsel for the parties.”

Signature Not Verified Digitaly signed by SUSHIL KUMAR RAKHEJA Date: 2018.08.07 Reason:

2. We are now stating our reasons which led us to allow the appeal of the appellants.

3. First Information Report under the provisions of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (For short, POCSO Act) has been registered in which charge sheet has been filed and the case registered as Sessions Case No. 460 of 2017 is pending before the Special Judge, Ernakulam. The appellants herein are arrayed as accused nos. 3, 4 and 5. Insofar as the appellants are concerned, allegations against them are under Sections 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’), Section 19 (1) read with Section 21 (1) of POCSO Act and Section

75 of the Juvenile Justice Act .

4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused no. 1 had raped the victim when she was a minor in the year 2016. As a result, she became pregnant. As per victim’s mother, when the victim started complaining about pain in her stomach, thinking it to be some problem related to stomach, she brought her to the hospital where the appellants were working, on 7^th February, 2017. It was found that the victim was in advance stage of pregnancy. In fact, soon after she was brought to the hospital, she went into labour. She delivered the child. Insofar as the appellants are concerned, their role is that they attended to the victim. Appellant no. 1 is a 66 years’ old lady who is a Gynecologist and had conducted the delivery. Appellant no. 2 is a Paediatrician who had attended to the baby of the victim after the delivery. Appellant no. 3, is a 69 years’ old Hospital Administrative. She is roped-in in that capacity though she did not attend to the victim or the baby.

5. It is not the case of the prosecution that these appellants had any knowledge about the alleged rape of the victim allegedly committed by accused No. 1 at any time earlier. In fact, they did not come into picture before 7^th February, 2017 when the victim was brought to the hospital. However, the charge against these appellants is primarily on account of purported commission of an act under Sections 19 (1) of POCSO Act. This Section reads as under:

“ Section 19 (I) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 , any person (including the child), who has apprehension that an offence under this Act is likely to be committed or has knowledge that such an offence has been committed, he shall provide such information to—

(a) the Special Juvenile Police Unit; or (b) the local police.

(2) Every report given under sub-section(I) shall be-- (a) ascribed an entry number and recorded in writing;

(b) be read over to the informant;

(c) shall be entered in a book to be kept by the Police Unit.

(3) Where the report under sub-section (I) is given by a child, the same shall be recorded under Section (2) in a simple language so that the child understands contents being recorded.

(4) In case contents are being recorded in the language not understood by the child or wherever it is deemed necessary, a translator or an interpreter, having such qualifications, experience and on payment of such fees as may be prescribed, shall be provided to the ch