Kochi: The Kerala High Court recently quashed criminal proceedings against a female doctor accused of failing to report a minor’s pregnancy and conducting an abortion without consent under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Justice A. Badharudeen emphasized the need for investigating officers to exercise caution while implicating medical practitioners under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, which pertain to reporting offences and punishment for failure to do so.
Key Observations
- Prima Facie Intent Necessary: The court held that criminal liability under the POCSO Act should only be imposed if there is a clear, prima facie indication of deliberate intent or omission by the doctor to report a crime.
- Mental Trauma for Doctors: The judge pointed out that mechanically prosecuting doctors without sufficient evidence causes mental trauma and can hinder their ability to perform their professional duties effectively.
- Focus on Saving Lives: The court recognized that doctors prioritize saving lives and may act in good faith during emergencies without suspecting criminal activity, especially when supported by documented consent.
Case Background
A 68-year-old gynecologist was accused of failing to report a minor’s pregnancy, allegedly a result of repeated sexual assault. She was charged under:
- POCSO Act: Sections 19 (failure to report) and 21 (punishment for non-reporting).
- IPC: Sections 312 (causing miscarriage) and 313 (causing miscarriage without consent).
The doctor contended that she was unaware of the victim’s minor status since the victim and her parents claimed she was 18 years old and married. The hospital records and consent forms reflected this information. She argued that her primary focus was on saving the victim’s life, as the victim presented with severe bleeding and symptoms of miscarriage.
The prosecution alleged the doctor was aware of the victim’s minor status and conducted the abortion without proper consent, violating legal provisions.
Court’s Findings
- No Evidence of Knowledge: The Court found no material evidence to suggest the doctor had actual knowledge of the victim’s minor status. Hospital records and consent forms signed by the father indicated the victim was 18.
- Good Faith Action: The abortion was deemed a good-faith act to save the victim’s life, supported by written consent from her father.
- No IPC Violation: The charges under Sections 312 and 313 IPC were also dismissed, as the procedure was performed with the intention of preserving the victim’s health.
Court Directions
The court quashed the criminal proceedings against the doctor and directed the registry to forward a copy of the order to the Director General of Police to ensure investigating officers approach such cases with caution.
This ruling reiterates the importance of safeguarding medical professionals from undue harassment while ensuring accountability under the law.
