S.21 POCSO Act | Doctor Not Responsible To 'Verify' Age Of Victim Or 'Ascertain' If Offence Has Been Committed: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court has recently observed that a Doctor does not have a responsibility to 'verify' or 'ascertain' the age of a victim brought in for abortion, for the purposes of reporting crime under POCSO Act.Section 19 of the POCSO Act put a legal obligation on a person to inform the relevant authorities when he/she has 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.The High Court relied on the decision of the Apex Court in SR. Tessy Jose and others v State of Kerala which held that the 'knowledge' requirement foisted on the Doctor cannot be that they ought to have 'deduced' from circumstances that an offence has been committed. It thus quashed the case lodged against a Doctor for failing to report an incident. “As the Hon'ble Apex Court has astutely noted, the petitioner bore no responsibility to verify the victim girl's age or ascertain whether offences had been committed. In light of this, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the provision of Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act are inapplicable to the petitioner,” the court said. Justice Murali Shankar noted that the case against the Doctor was registered solely based on the statement of the defacto complainant, the minor's sister and without conducting any preliminary inquiry. The court added that such treatment of medical professionals may discourage them from taking risks to save the lives of the patients. The court lamented the recent attack on doctors and remarked that false complaints against doctors could lead to harassment by police which in turn may cause them immense stress, damage their reputation, and impact their ability to practice the profession. “While acknowledging the presence of quacks and corporatized hospitals, it is essential to recognize that majority of medical practitioners dedicate their life to serve humanity with compassion and expertise. Unfortunately, false complaints against Doctors can lead to unwanted harassment by police authorities and this can cause immense stress, damage to their reputation, and even impact their ability to practise medicine. It is crucial to accord Doctors the respect and dignity, they deserve and failing to do so, can have devastating consequences on society, including demotivation among medical professionals, decreased access to quality health care and erosion of trust in the medical community,” the court observed. In the present case, the Doctor along with two others were charged with offences under Section 5(1), 5(j)(ii), 6(1), and 21(1) of the POCSO Act and Section 312 of IPC. The case of the prosecution was that the victim girl, aged 17, was brought to the petitioner's hospital by her maternal aunt, and on testing, it was found that she was 9 weeks pregnant. Thereafter, at the time of abortion, the victim failed to cooperate, and there was profuse bleeding. Thus, she was taken to Trichy Government Hospital where she died, despite treatment. Thus, based on a complaint by the victim's sister, the complaint was lodged. The petitioner argued that when the victim was brought to the hospital by her aunt, the petitioner inquired about her age and she was told that the victim was 18 years old and unmarried. The petitioner further submitted that when the victim and her aunt insisted on aborting the fetus, she refused the same and informed them that she would have to report it to the police and the District Collector as the victim was unmarried and on informing the same, the victim and her aunt left the hospital. The petitioner further informed that when the victim and her aunt again came to the hospital with complaints of dizziness and weakness, she commenced to give IV fluids as the victim's hemoglobin and blood pressure was low. She also submitted that she had taken all steps to ensure that the victim was taken to the Trichy Government Hospital. Thus, she submitted that the allegations in the FIR were completely false and that she was innocent. The petitioner also argued that an essential element under the POCSO Act was the victim's minority status and in the present case, the victim had stated that her age was 18 years. It was argued that in the present case, the victim's age was contradicted by the records and thus, the police's reliance on the sister's statement alone was insufficient. The court noted that the Doctor bore no responsibility to verify the victim's age or ascertain whether any offence has been committed. The court added that with respect to the offence under Section 312 of IPC, the prosecution had not alleged that the petitioner or her staff at the hospital had done any action that would have caused the victim's death. The court noted that the prosecution had failed to establish any prima facie case against the doctor and thus permitting the prosecution would be unnecessary, unwarranted and would ...

S.21 POCSO Act | Doctor Not Responsible To 'Verify' Age Of Victim Or 'Ascertain' If Offence Has Been Committed: Madras High Court

Upasana Sajeev

Tags