Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. I shall now try to identify the provisions in the Code of Criminal Procedure which are inconsistent with the statutory mandate contained in Section 19 of the POCSO Act. Section 19 of the POCSO Act does not refer to any particular provision of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The non-obstante clause in Section 19 of the POCSO Act is to be constructed strictly so that its overriding operative effect is restricted only to the contradictory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure and not to the entire Code.

The POCSO Act does not offer any The mandate to report the offence is exception to the mandate to report subject to any reasonable excuse.
the commission of offences.
The failure to report under Section 39 The act of non-reporting of an of Cr.PC by itself is not defined as an offence by itself is tantamount to an offence. offence.

24. The above table will assist us to analyse the inconsistencies between Section 19 of the POCSO Act and Section 2024:KER:96686 39 of the Cr.PC on the principle of 'subject matter test'. The above table indicates that Section 19 of the POCSO Act and Section 39 of the Cr.PC, in respect of the subject matter mentioned above, appear to be inconsistent with each other. Therefore, when a person is to be tried for his failure to report under Section 19 of POCSO Act, he cannot resort to Section 39 of the Cr.PC and take protection on the ground that he had a reasonable excuse not to report the offence. Therefore, in the above context, Section 19 of the POCSO Act overrides the provisions of Section 39 of the Cr.PC.

25. The non-obstante clause of Section 19 of the POCSO Act is not intended to override the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which are not inconsistent with Section 19 of the POCSO Act.

26. In Ismail. M v. State of Kerala [2019 (3) KLT 1117] by applying the subject matter test, this Court laid down the proposition that Section 19 of the Act operates as a special provision in the matter of reporting of offences under the POCSO 2024:KER:96686 Act and Section 31 of the POCSO Act, mandates the applicability of the Code of Criminal Procedure which are not inconsistent with Section 19 of the POCSO Act.

67. The State Police Chief is directed to see that the mandate of the POCSO Act that the identity of the victim is not revealed is scrupulously followed by the members of the police force.

2024:KER:96686 The lacuna in sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the POCSO Act.

68. The learned Amicus Curiae brought to the notice of the Court that the lacuna in sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the POCSO Act requires to be addressed. The learned Amicus Curiae submitted that whereas sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the POCSO Act casts a duty on even a child to report the commission of an offence/apprehension to commit an offence, the protection extended by sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the POCSO Act is restricted to the victim and not to the child reporting the offence/apprehension to commit the offence. The professed mandate of the POCSO Act is that the safeguard under sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the POCSO Act deserves to be extended to a child who is reporting the commission of an offence/apprehension of commission of an offence. If such protection is not accorded, the very object of the Act would be defeated. Therefore, it is made clear that the safeguard under sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the POCSO Act is applicable to the child who is reporting the 2024:KER:96686 commission of an offence/apprehension of the commission of an offence.