Kerala Court Sentences Clinical Psychologist For Sexual Abuse Of Minor Patient
A Kerala Court has convicted a Clinical Psychologist to 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the sexual assault of a 13 year old boy who used to consult him in the counselling centre run by him. This is the second such case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against the accused, Dr. Gireesh K., in which he has been convicted. Last year, the Court had sentenced...
A Kerala Court has convicted a Clinical Psychologist to 7 years rigorous imprisonment for the sexual assault of a 13 year old boy who used to consult him in the counselling centre run by him.
This is the second such case under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act against the accused, Dr. Gireesh K., in which he has been convicted. Last year, the Court had sentenced Gireesh to six years' rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 1 Lakh for the abuse of another minor boy during a counselling session.
The Fast Track Special Court (POCSO), Thiruvananthapuram Judge Aaj Sudarsan recalled the words of an American Psychologist that Psychology is about bringing out the best in people and building strength of character but this is a case of, it added,
"A Clinical Psychologist who has remorselessly assaulted his patient, a boy for sexual gratification reminding of the old proverb ‘What can be done when fences eat crops’".
The prosecution case, led by Special Pubic Prosecutor Vijay Mohan R.S., was that the accused, apart from giving counselling to people with mental disorders, victims of abuse, and so on, was also working as an Assistant Professor in Heath Department.
The 13 year old victim thus used to visit the counselling center run by the accused along with his parents for consultation between December 6, 2015 till February 21, 2017. It was during this time that the accused had sexually assaulted the minor victim boy on more than one instance. He was also accused of criminally intimidating the minor victim from disclosing the incident to anyone else. The victim disclosed the case two years after the incident. The accused was thus charged with Sections 506 (i) IPC, 9(c) r/w 10, 9 (e) r/w 10, 9(k) r/w 10, 9(l) r/w 10 11 (iii) r/w 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
Counsels for the accused argued that he was a Clinical Psychologist who had flourished in his career. It was alleged that just before his appointment as Director, Kerala State Institute of Mentally Challenged, certain doctors of Department of Psychiatry, Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthpuram, had falsely foisted this case upon him with the connivance of Inspector of Police, who had charge sheeted the accused in the earlier case. It was averred that there had been complaints against the said Inspector for police harassment and falsely implicating the accused.
The Court in this case noted that the defence could not bring out any material to show existence of any animosity or jealousy of the doctors towards the accused nor the animosity shown by the family of the victim to the accused, and accordingly brushed aside the arguments raised by the accused. Rejecting the other contentions of accused, the Court added,
"Mere presence of interns inside the cabin present in his consulting room does not mean that they would be watching or listening to the secret and confidential talks between the patient and the accused...The evidence given by PW3 and PW4 clearly shows that the accused used to talk to them first whenever they had taken PW2 for consultation and after that he used to call PW2 to the consulting room and the consultation always took place behind closed doors while they used to wait outside the consultation room in the visitor’s waiting area."
It added that Section 24 of the POCSO Act does not mandatorily state that the statement of a victim of sexual assault should be recorded by a woman police officer. So, the act of Police Sub-Inspector in bona fide belief that he can record the statement of victim, because victim is a boy, is not violative of the statute, it held.
The Court found Gireesh guilty of offences punishable under Sections 9(c) (aggravated sexual assault by public servant) r/w 10 (Punishment for Aggravated sexual assault), 9(l) (aggravated sexual assault on child more than once) r/w 10, 9(k) (aggravated sexual assault by taking advantage of child's mental/physical disability) r/w 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012.
He was however acquitted of the offences punishable under Sections 506(i) IPC (punishment for criminal intimidation), 9(e ) (aggravated sexual assault by management or staff of hospital, whether Government or private) , 11(iii) (sexual harassment by showing object to child in any form or media for pornographic purposes) r/w 12 (punishment for sexual harassment) of the POCSO Act, 2012.
As regards the sentence to be imposed, the Court observed that,
"Sentencing the accused in this case is based on the evidence adduced and the gravity of the offence committed by him being a public servant and a Clinical Psychologist who owes certain duties to his client and the society and also on the child who approached him for curing his mental disorder along with the factors concerning the health issues as stated by the accused".
The accused was represented by Advocates Sojan Michel, Sheebanath S., and Kiran P. Dev.
Case Title: State v. Dr. Gireesh K.