S.19 POCSO Act Doesn't Obligate Doctor To "Investigate And Gather Knowledge" Of Sexual Assault To Report It To Police: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that Sections 19 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act puts an obligation on a doctor to inform the relevant authorities when she/he has knowledge of an offence under the Act. There is no obligation on this person to investigate and gather knowledge about the offence.

A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar said “The expression used is "knowledge" which means that some information received by such a person gives him/her knowledge about the commission of the crime. There is no obligation on this person to investigate and gather knowledge.”

The court made the observation while allowing a petition filed by Dr. Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali (petitioner/ accused no.2), and setting aside the trial court order charging her under the Act. It was alleged that doctor failed to report the crime to the police, while she terminated the pregnancy of a rape victim.

The petitioner argued that the victim herself with her mother went to the hospital, filled the details in the admission forms and requested to terminate her pregnancy. Entirely based upon the information furnished by the victim girl, to save the life of the victim, she conducted the medical termination of pregnancy of the victim girl. She claimed to have no knowledge about the alleged rape committed by the accused no.1 on the victim girl. Further, she claimed the said facts were not disclosed to her by any of the persons in general and particularly the victim girl and her mother.

The prosecution opposed the plea saying as the material placed on record by the prosecution do establish the knowledge of the petitioner about the commission of the offences against the victim girl, has not intimated the said fact to the Police station which amounts to violation of the provisions of the POCSO Act.

The bench on going through the records noted that the whole allegation of the victim girl is that, under the guise of promising to marry victim girl, accused no.1 committed the sexual assault on her. Though he promised to marry her, but, did not marry her. That made the victim girl file the complaint.

Then it said “It is argued by the counsel for the State as the victim girl was a minor therefore, accused no.2 should have taken due care in finding as to how the victim became pregnant. Fastening the criminal liability on the basis above allegations is too far fetched.”

It held that if at all the petitioner was not careful enough to find the cause of pregnancy as the victim is only 18 years of age at the time of delivering, but that would not be translated into criminal liability.

It added “In view of the clear provisions of the POCSO Act, it is the duty of the prosecution to prove that the petitioner had a knowledge about this empirical knowledge of a commission of rape on the victim girl by the accused no. 1.”

Court said facts on record put-forth by the prosecution establish that the victim girl as well as mother who filled her admission form in the Kamala Hospital showed her age as 18 years. Even the accused no.1 accompanied them. There it was disclosed that the accused no.1 is the husband of the victim girl. They requested petitioner to terminate the pregnancy. Based upon this information, petitioner undertook to terminate the pregnancy of the victim girl. Thereafter they went to the police station and lodged a complaint.

The court said “The very term `knowledge' mentioned in Sec.19 of the POCSO Act mandates to show that, this accused no.2 had knowledge about all these factual events that have taken place about the victim girl. But now the IO has charge sheeted accused no. 2 for the offences under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act. The main ingredient of the term `knowledge' is missing in this case. Not even single evidence is brought on record by the prosecution that the petitioner/accused no.2 had knowledge about the events that have taken place with regard to the victim girl.”

Thus it held “As accused no. 2 (petitioner) had no knowledge about the same and believed the version of the victim girl, her mother and accused no. 1 who accompanied the victim girl. In the hospital the victim girl has disclosed her age as 18 years. To that effect documents are produced by the petitioner/accused no. 2. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no proper evidence brought on record by the prosecution to show that this petitioner/ accused no.2 is involved in the commission of the crime in the manner alleged by the prosecution.”

It added “I am of the opinion that there is no evidence implicating accused no.2 for the offence under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act. Based upon this grave suspicion story of the prosecution, cannot be believed.”

Accordingly it discharged the accused.

Appearance: Advocate K L Patil for Petitioner

Advocate M.B. Gundawade for Respondent.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 107

Case Title: Dr Lata Krishnaraddi Mankali AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100169 OF 2020

Click Here To Read/Download Order