Can Doctors Be Prosecuted U/S 19(1) POCSO Act For Failing To Inform Police About Offence Against Minor Within Reasonable Time? Kerala HC Answers
The Kerala High Court has held that every person has to inform the police within a reasonable time as per Section 19 (1) of the POCSO Act if they have an apprehension that an offence has been committed against a minor. It held that a person will be prosecuted only when there is a deliberate omission to report the offence to the police.In this case, the petitioner who is a doctor was arrayed...
The Kerala High Court has held that every person has to inform the police within a reasonable time as per Section 19 (1) of the POCSO Act if they have an apprehension that an offence has been committed against a minor. It held that a person will be prosecuted only when there is a deliberate omission to report the offence to the police.
In this case, the petitioner who is a doctor was arrayed as the second accused on failure to inform the Special Juvenile Justice Police or local police about the offence committed against a minor under Section 19 (1) of the POCSO Act, despite having an apprehension that an offence has been committed.
Justice A. Badharudeen held that a reasonable time must be given to doctors to inform the police about such incidents.
“Therefore, reasonable time should be given to the doctors to inform such incidents to the Police. Viewing the duties of a doctor in this plank, in the instant case, the doctor failed to inform about pregnancy of a minor girl, within a period of 7.15 hours from the time of his knowledge, by the time, Police reached the hospital and soon crime was registered. In such a case, can criminal culpability to be imposed upon the doctor is the relevant question? The answer to the said question is; definitely 'no', because he did not get a reasonable time to inform the matter to the Police...."
In the present case, the minor aged 17 years was taken to a hospital in Mangalapuram for an abortion by her father who was responsible for the pregnancy. It is alleged that the petitioner's doctor (2nd accused) was aware of her pregnancy from her scan report. It is alleged that the victim was admitted to the hospital and a tablet was put in her vagina to abort the pregnancy by 3rd accused. It is alleged that the petitioner even though was aware of the pregnancy failed to inform the police and committed an offence under Section 19 (1) of the POCSO Act.
On interpreting Section 19 (1) of the Act, the Court said: “When a person notices that an offence under the POCSO Act has been committed and failed to inform the same within a reasonable time, definitely he said to have committed offence punishable under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act.”
In the facts of the case, the Court noted that the petitioner informed the police and on the next day the police reached the hospital and registered the crime. The Court stated it cannot be said that the petitioner made any deliberate omission or failed to inform the police since they reached the hospital within 7.15 hours when the victim was in the hospital itself.
“In my view, in order to fasten criminal culpability upon a person for failure to report to the Police regarding commission of offence under the POCSO Act and to make omission to report the same, as an offence punishable under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act, there must be a deliberate omission to be gathered from the records”, added the Court
The Court stated that doctors are responsible for saving lives and they might be busy with other patients requiring immediate medical attention. The Court thus stated that reasonable time should be granted to doctors for informing the police about such incidents.
The Court clarified thus, “In my view, if there is omission even after getting information to report the same to the Police after 24.00 hours atleast, the offence punishable under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act would get attracted. If the omission is only for a period less than 24.00 hours, similar to 7.15 hours in the present case, fastening criminal culpability on the doctor for the said short omission could not be justified.”
In the facts of the case, the Court held that the petitioner made no wilful omission and that he informed the police as per Section 19 (1) of the Act. The Court thus set aside the order dismissing the discharge petition of the petitioner and discharged him from the crime.
Counsel for Petitioner: Advocates S Rajeev, M S Aneer, V Vinay, Anilkumar C R, Prerith Philip, Joseph Sarath K P
Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor Renjit George
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 451
Case Title: Dr. Radhakrishna S Naik v State of Kerala
Case Number: Crl.Rev.Pet No. 1064 OF 2023
Click here to read/download Order