When Doctor Who Initially Treated POCSO Victim Reported Crime To Police, Action Against Subsequent Doctor U/S 21 Is Unwarranted: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has held that the POCSO Act does not provide an outer limit for reporting of offences to the Police, and that the intent is to report to the Police without delay.The Court was considering whether a doctor, who treated the victim subsequently, could be held criminally liable for failing to report the commission of offences under the POCSO Act, when the information had already been provided to the police by the doctor who initially treated the victim. Section 19 of the POCSO Act put a legal obligation on a person to inform the relevant authorities when there is knowledge that an offence under the Act had been committed. Section 21 deals with the punishment for failing to report or record a sexual offence.In the facts of the case, Justice A. Badharudeen noted that the FIR was registered based on the information given by the first doctor without much delay and FIR was also registered while the victim was undergoing treatment with the Petitioner. “In fact, when a doctor, who had occasion to treat or attend a victim of the POCSO Act offence, gets knowledge regarding commission of the offence under the POCSO Act, he is duty bound to report the same to the Police, in view of the mandate of Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. But the statute does not provide an outer time limit for the same. Therefore, the intent behind the legislature is to report commission of the offence under the POCSO Act, without much delay.”As per prosecution case, a minor was subjected to sexual intercourse by the first accused and she became pregnant. Crime for failing to report commission of offences under the POCSO Act under Section 19 read with Section 21 was registered against the victim's mother (second accused) and the petitioner-doctor (third accused).The petitioner submitted that the victim was referred to the petitioner by another doctor, who had already informed the police, leading to the registration of an FIR on June 04. The victim was examined by the first doctor on May 31, and complaint was given to police and FIR was registered on June 04. It was submitted that the Petitioner met the victim when she had bleeding and treatment was given to save her life, as a result of which abortion occurred. The petitioner emphasized that since the FIR was registered on June 4, while the victim was under her treatment, there was no intentional omission to report the crime. On the other hand, the Public Prosecutor submitted that even though the Petitioner started treating the victim on June 02 , she had taken no steps to report the crime to the Police. It was submitted that the Petitioner has a duty cast upon her to report to police when there is an apprehension of commission of offences under the POCSO Act. The Court observed that prompt and proper reporting of the commission of offence under the POCSO Act is crucial, and failure to report such offences would defeat the purpose of the Act. Court added that timely reporting of offences is inevitable to start investigation and medical examination of the victim. However, the Court cautioned that facts of each case should be evaluated to assess whether there was 'willful or deliberate omission on the part of the doctor' before imposing criminal liability. In the facts of the case, the Court noted that on June 04, when the Police reached the hospital for taking the statement of the victim, she was under the treatment of the Petitioner. It also noted that even though the Petitioner started treating the victim of June 02, she did not inform the Police. The Court further stated that there was no deliberate omission on the part of the Petitioner to report the crime. It stated that since the FIR has been registered based on information given by the first doctor to the Police without delay, criminal proceedings against the Petitioner is unwarranted and lacks justification. “In such a case, it is held that, when the initial doctor, who treated or had occasion to attend the victim, on getting knowledge regarding commission of the offence under the POCSO Act, reports the same without much delay and on the basis of the same crime also registered, criminal prosecution against the doctor or doctors, who subsequently treated the same victim for the offence under Section 21 read with 19(1) of the POCSO Act, is an abuse of process of court, since the doctor who initially treated the victim already informed the same to the Police and crime was also registered. No doubt, such prosecution shall be avoided.”As such, all the criminal proceedings against the Petitioner was quashed. Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates K T Bosco, P Darly JohnCounsel for Respondent: Public Prosecutor Jibu T SCase Title: Dr V K Sulochana v State of Kerala Case No: CRL.MC NO. 2310 OF 2022Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 81Click here to Read/Download Order

When Doctor Who Initially Treated POCSO Victim Reported Crime To Police, Action Against Subsequent Doctor U/S 21 Is Unwarranted: Kerala HC

Tellmy Jolly

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Tellmy Jolly

When Doctor Who Initially Treated POCSO Victim Reported Crime To Police, Action Against Subsequent Doctor U/S 21 Is Unwarranted: Kerala HC

Tellmy Jolly

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Tellmy Jolly

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers