Doctors Getting Arrayed U/S 19 POCSO Act Mechanically: Kerala HC Quashes POCSO Case Against Doctor; Directs Investigating Officers To Be More Cautious
The Kerala High Court directed the unwanted implication of doctors in POCSO crimes to be avoided unless deliberate intention was divulged from records.
Justice A. Badharudeen, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a doctor arrayed “mechanically” under Section 19 of the POCSO Act while directing the investigating officers to be more cautious when doctors’ involvement is doubted in such offences.
The Court held that the medical records of the victim showed her age as 18 years and there was nothing otherwise that would suggest that the doctor (Petitioner) had the occasion to know about the age of the victim as below 18 years by any other methods normally available. “In such a case, it is difficult to hold that the doctor deliberately failed to report the same to the police within the mandate of Section 19(1) and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act,” it held.
A Single Bench of Justice A Badharudeen directed, “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.”
Advocate Sooraj T Elenjickal represented the Petitioner, while Public Prosecutor Jibu TS appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Prosecution alleged that the Petitioner, while treating a minor victim who became pregnant following sexual assault, failed to report the pregnancy to authorities as required under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act. The Prosecution further accused the Petitioner of conducting an abortion without the victim's consent, leading to charges under Sections 21 and 19 of the POCSO Act and Sections 312 and 313 of the IPC.
Arguments by the Doctor
The Petitioner argued that the victim and her parents declared her age as 18 at the time of consultation, and there was no reason to suspect otherwise. She contended that the abortion was performed to save the victim’s life, as she presented with profuse bleeding and symptoms of a miscarriage. Finally, it was argued that the Prosecution’s allegations were based on subsequent findings that the victim was a minor, determined after registration of the crime.
The Petitioner relied on the judgment by the Supreme Court in Tessy Jose v. State of Kerala (2018) which clarified that doctors are not obligated to investigate the age of patients unless circumstances indicate otherwise.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court relied on the decision in Tessy Jose (supra), wherein it was 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,” it was held.
“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,” the Bench remarked.
The Bench observed that the doctor had given treatment to complete the process of miscarriage with a bona fide attempt to save the victim. “Thus, prima facie, offences under Sections 312 and 313 of IPC also would not attract, against the petitioner. In such view of the matter, prosecution against the petitioner is liable to be quashed,” it held.
Consequently, the Court held, “In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Case stands allowed…final report…against the petitioner stands quashed.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.
Cause Title: Dr. T Ambujakshi v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:5403)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Sooraj T.Elenjickal, Aswin Kumar M J, Arun Roy and Shahir Showkath Ali
Respondent: Public Prosecutor Jibu TS