Kochi: The Kerala High Court has ruled that when the first doctor treating a POCSO victim has already reported the crime to the police, subsequent doctors treating the victim cannot be held criminally liable for failing to report the same offence.
Key Observations of the Court
Justice A. Badharudeen emphasized that the POCSO Act does not prescribe a strict time limit for reporting offences, but the intent of the law is to ensure timely reporting without undue delay.
The case revolved around whether a doctor who later treated the victim could be prosecuted under Section 21 (punishment for failure to report) when the first doctor had already informed the police, leading to an FIR registration.
The court clarified that:
- Doctors have a legal obligation under Section 19 of the POCSO Act to report suspected offences.
- However, if an FIR has already been registered based on the initial report, further prosecution of other doctors for non-reporting is unjustified.
- The intentional or willful omission to report must be evaluated in each case before imposing criminal liability.
Case Background
The minor victim became pregnant after being sexually assaulted. A case under POCSO Act was registered against the victim’s mother (second accused) and the petitioner-doctor (third accused) for failing to report the offence.
The petitioner argued that:
- The victim had been referred to her by another doctor, who had already reported the crime to the police.
- The FIR was registered on June 4, before she had an opportunity to report the case.
- She treated the victim for excessive bleeding and prioritized saving her life, which led to an abortion.
The prosecution argued that even though the petitioner started treating the victim on June 2, she failed to inform the police and had a legal duty to do so.
High Court’s Decision
- The court acknowledged the importance of prompt reporting for investigation and medical examination of the victim.
- However, in this case, the police had already registered an FIR based on the first doctor’s report.
- The petitioner’s actions were not willful omissions since the police were already involved.
Thus, the High Court ruled that continuing criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be an abuse of the judicial process and quashed all charges against her.
Legal Takeaway
This judgment clarifies that:
- Subsequent doctors are not automatically liable under Section 21 of the POCSO Act if the crime has already been reported by another doctor.
- Medical professionals must prioritize reporting crimes but will not face prosecution if an FIR has already been registered.
- Courts will assess intent and willfulness before holding a doctor liable under the POCSO Act.
This ruling provides important legal protection for medical professionals while ensuring that the reporting of POCSO crimes remains a priority.
