Summary
Seventeen minor tribal girls in a school hostel in Chandrapur were allegedly sexually abused. The hostel's doctor was charge-sheeted under Sections 19(1) and 21 of the POCSO Act for not reporting the abuse, which several victims said they had told him about. The Bombay High Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against him under Section 482 CrPC, after reading the victims' and a teacher's statements and finding no evidence that he knew. The Supreme Court restored the prosecution. Statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC are inadmissible and cannot be weighed to quash proceedings. Their truth and sufficiency are for the trial. Failing to report child sexual abuse is a serious offence despite its short maximum sentence, because it shields offenders and defeats the Act.
Issues
- Whether the High Court under Section 482 CrPC could quash the FIR and charge-sheet against a doctor accused of failing to report sexual abuse of minor hostel girls, by assessing the victims' and a teacher's statements recorded during investigation.
- Whether failure to report an offence under the POCSO Act is a serious offence.
Provisions considered
- Sections 19(1) and 21, Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012A person who knows that a POCSO offence has been committed must report it, and failure is punishable; such non-reporting is a serious crime that tends to shield offenders, regardless of the short maximum sentence. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22)
- Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Inherent power must be exercised sparingly and not to stifle a legitimate prosecution; where the FIR and charge-sheet disclose a prima facie offence, reliability and sufficiency of evidence are for the trial court. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 18, 25)
- Sections 161 and 164, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Statements recorded under these sections are inadmissible as substantive evidence and could not be sifted by the High Court to conclude that there was no evidence against the accused. (¶¶ 19, 20, 22, 24)
- Sections 145 and 157, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC can be used only for contradiction and corroboration, not as substantive evidence. (¶ 20)
Held
- The length of punishment is not the sole test of an offence's gravity; prompt reporting under the POCSO Act enables immediate medical examination and investigation, and failure to report defeats the Act's purpose. (¶¶ 12, 14, 15)
- The High Court erred in assessing the victims' and teacher's statements to conclude that the doctor was unaware of the abuse, since such statements are inadmissible and cannot be sifted in quashing proceedings, and some victims had stated that they told him. (¶¶ 21, 22, 24)
- A.S. Krishnan, concerning knowledge under Section 471 IPC in an appeal against conviction, did not apply to a quashing petition; the material disclosed a prima facie case for non-reporting. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- Quashing the proceedings at the threshold without letting the material see the light of day caused a miscarriage of justice. (¶ 25)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Bombay High Court's judgment quashing FIR No. 185 of 2019 and the charge-sheet against the respondent set aside, and the prosecution against him restored.