POCSO Act : Doctors doing professional duty not liable under Section 19
Bombay High Court Quashes FIR Against Doctors in POCSO Act Case. Medical Practitioners Exonerated Due to Lack of Knowledge Requirement Under Section 19 of POCSO Act
In a significant ruling, the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) has quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against three medical practitioners accused under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The court held that the term "knowledge" under Section 19 of the POCSO Act requires explicit awareness of an offence involving a minor, which was not established in this case.
The case involved allegations against Dr. Anil and others, who were implicated for not reporting an offence involving a minor, as required under Section 19 of the POCSO Act. The minor's mother had filed a complaint alleging that her daughter was pregnant due to a physical relationship with a cousin, which began when she was a minor.
The court, comprising Justices Urmila Joshi-Phalke and Nandesh S. Deshpande, analyzed whether the medical practitioners had the requisite knowledge of the minor's age and the alleged offence. The judgment emphasized that mere professional duties or circumstantial inferences do not constitute "knowledge" under the Act.
Citing the Supreme Court judgment in SR. Tessy Jose v. State of Kerala, the High Court reiterated that the obligation to report under Section 19 arises only when there is direct knowledge of an offence, not from circumstantial deductions. The court observed that the doctors were performing their professional duties and had no explicit awareness of the minor's age or the nature of the offence.
Additionally, the court quashed the allegations under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, stating that the FIR and charge-sheet did not prima facie constitute any offence against the accused. The court highlighted that continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of the legal process.
The judgment underscores the importance of clear legal standards for implicating professionals under the POCSO Act and cautions against stretching statutory provisions without explicit evidence of knowledge. This ruling is expected to have significant implications for how medical professionals are treated under similar legal provisions.
Bottom Line:
Medical practitioners cannot be held criminally liable under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 unless they have explicit "knowledge" of the commission of an offence involving a minor. Mere professional duty or circumstances that do not establish direct awareness cannot be construed as "knowledge" under the Act.
Statutory provision(s): Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 Sections 4, 6, 19, 21; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 Sections 64(2)(f), 64(2)(i), 64(2)(m), 65(1), 3(5); Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528.
Dr. Anil v. State of Maharashtra, (Bombay)(DB)(Nagpur Bench) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2791758
