Summary
The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings against two doctors and a hospital administrator accused of failing to report a POCSO offence after a patient recorded as eighteen delivered a baby. The prosecution material did not establish their knowledge that she had been a minor when intercourse occurred. Section 19(1) did not require them to investigate and acquire that knowledge merely from the circumstances of delivery.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution material established knowledge sufficient to charge the doctors and administrator for failure to report a POCSO offence.
Provisions considered
- Section 19(1), read with Section 21(1), Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012The reporting obligation invoked against the appellants depended on knowledge of the committed offence. The material did not support that knowledge, and Section 19(1) imposed no obligation to investigate to acquire it. (¶¶ 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14)
Held
- Neither the patient nor her mother stated that they informed the appellants of the alleged rape while she was a minor. The obstetrician attended an immediate labour and delivery; the paediatrician attended the baby and did not examine the patient; the administrator had no contact with either. (¶¶ 8, 10, 11, 12)
- The prosecution relied on the patient’s recorded age of eighteen at delivery to argue that the appellants should have inferred minority at conception and investigated. This was insufficient to establish knowledge of the offence. An asserted failure to discover the cause of pregnancy could not on these facts be converted into criminal liability. (¶¶ 9, 10, 13)
- Charging requires material indicating at least grave suspicion; a mere likelihood of suspicion is insufficient. The collected prosecution evidence did not implicate these appellants. (¶ 14)
Result
Appeal allowed. Proceedings in Sessions Case No.460 of 2017 quashed insofar as the three appellants were concerned.