Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court ruled that a doctor cannot be held criminally liable for failing to report an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act if the doctor acted in good faith based on the age disclosed by the patient and their parents and treated the victim.

The court, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, relying on the Apex Court’s ruling in Tessy Jose & Ors. v. State of Kerala, noted: “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 rowing enquiry in this regard is mandated by law. Thus once the age disclosed is 18 years, there is no necessity to delve upon its correctness by the doctors normally, unless the age disclosed is, prima facie, not convincing, by appearance or otherwise.”

The court’s observation came while quashing the proceedings against a doctor accused under Section 21 read with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act dealing with Reporting of POCSO offences and Punishment for failure to report such cases, as well as Sections 312 (Causing miscarriage) and 313 (Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

The prosecution alleged that the first accused had repeatedly sexually assaulted a minor victim, resulting in her pregnancy. The second accused, a doctor, was charged for failing to report the minor’s pregnancy. Additionally, the doctor was accused of performing an abortion without proper consent.

The petitioner doctor argued that when the victim was presented at the hospital, both she and her parents claimed she was 18 years old and married. The victim sought treatment for abdominal pain and heavy bleeding, symptoms indicative of a miscarriage. The doctor acted based on the information provided and performed medical procedures to save the victim's life. The petitioner further contended that no evidence existed to suggest the victim's age was known to be under 18 years at the time of treatment.

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that the doctor had knowledge of the victim's age and should have reported the incident. It was further contended that the miscarriage also was done without the consent of the minor victim and no evidence to hold that the same was done to save the life of the victim.

The court examined the medical records, consultation notes, and consent forms, all of which listed the victim’s age as 18 years. The noted that the doctor had no reason to doubt the age disclosed by the victim and her parents, nor was there any legal obligation to investigate further unless there were clear indications to suspect otherwise.

“The knowledge of the doctor regarding commission of an offence when the victim reaches the hospital along with her parents and discloses her age as 18 years to the doctor, is their disclosure, unless there is no reason to doubt the same. There is no need to scrabble about the age rather than believing it for the purpose of proceeding further,” stated the court.

The court further noted that the doctor’s actions during the miscarriage were in good faith and aimed at saving the victim’s life, thus negating any criminal intent. It said, “Fastening criminal liability under Section 21 of the POCSO Act r/w Section 19(1) cannot be based on irrelevant materials and subsequent facts brought into, for which the accused has no nexus.”

The court also directed the police to exercise greater caution when implicating medical professionals under the POCSO Act, stating that, “Doctors are bestowed with the duty to save the life of the patients and have been busily engaged in their vow. 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.”

In light of these findings, the court quashed the criminal proceedings against the doctor, ruling that there was no prima facie case for prosecuting him.

 

Cause Title: Dr. T Ambujakshi v State of Kerala [CRL.MC NO. 4728 OF 2021]

Appearance: For the Petitioner - Advocates Sooraj T. Elenjickal, Aswin Kumar M J, Arun Roy, Shahir Showkath Ali; For the Prosecution- Public Prosecutor Jibu T S.