Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. In the instant case, the prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376(2)(f) and 109 2025:KER:5403 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) as well as under Sections 6, 6(1) r/w 5(l), 5(n), 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act and under Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000 (`J.J Act' for short) by the 1st accused, who alleged to have subjected the minor victim to repeated sexual intercourse. The specific allegation against the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 2nd accused, is that the 2nd accused (doctor), who had examined the victim, though came to know about the pregnancy of the minor victim, failed to report the same to the police in tune with the mandate of Section 19(1) of POCSO Act and also had conducted abortion of the victim without consent. On this premise, prosecution alleges commission of offences punishable under Section 21 r/w 19 of the POCSO Act as well as under Sections 312 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC' for short) by the 2nd accused.

Appellant No.1 is a 66 year old lady who is a Gynaecologist 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 year old Hospital Administrative. She was roped-in in that capacity 2025:KER:5403 though she did not attend to the victim or the baby. 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.

8. It is true that after registration of this crime when the victim was examined by another doctor on 20.07.2020, as requested by the prosecution side her age was recorded as 15 years 11 months and 20 days.

9. However, none of the records produced by the prosecution would show that the petitioner herein had occasion to consider, prima facie, that the victim, who approached with abdomen pain and bleeding with symptoms of miscarriage was under the age of 18 years as per the age disclosed by her as well as her parents. The Apex Court in Tessy Jose & Ors. v. State of Kerala (supra), held that there is no obligation on the doctor to investigate and detect knowledge regarding the age of the victim. As a natural phenomena when a patient meets a doctor, the doctor would act upon the age disclosed by her and no roving enquiry in this regard is mandated by law. Thus once the age disclosed is 18 years, 2025:KER:5403 there is no necessity to delve upon its correctness by the doctors normally, unless the age disclosed is, prima facie, not convincing, by appearance or otherwise. Fastening criminal liability under Section 21 of the POCSO Act r/w Section 19(1) cannot be based on irrelevant materials and subsequent facts brought into, for which the accused has no nexus. The knowledge of the doctor regarding commission of an offence when the victim reaches the hospital along with her parents and discloses her age as 18 years to the doctor, is their disclosure, unless there is no reason to doubt the same. There is no need to scrabble about the age rather than believing it for the purpose of proceeding further. Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act provides as under:

11. Before adieu, it is inevitable to observe that I had occasion to come across many cases where doctors being inveigled into criminal cases under the POCSO Act within the sweep of Section 21 r/w Section 19, urging that there was failure to report the crime as stipulated in 2025:KER:5403 Section 19. In this regard, it is high time to address on this issue. Doctors are bestowed with the duty to save the life of the patients and have been busily engaged in their vow. Therefore, while implicating doctors in criminal cases with the aid of Section 19 of the POCSO Act, the investigating officer must apply his mind from the materials collected and form an unbiased opinion to see, prima facie, that there is deliberate intention or omission to report the crime. Unless the said deliberate intention not divulged from the records, unwanted implication of doctors in crime shall be avoided. It is noticed that doctors got arrayed as accused with the aid of Section 19 of the POCSO Act mechanically, without applying the mind of the investigating officer. This is nothing but absolute injustice and putting the doctors under mental trauma of criminal prosecution and the same would stand as a rider for the doctors in doing their duties promptly. Therefore, the investigating officers are specifically directed to be more cautious when doctors' involvement is doubted in POCSO offences and implication of doctors in criminal cases under the POCSO Act shall be avoided unless relevant materials do not justify the same.