'Non reporting of sexual offences against minor serious,' HC declines to quash case against doctor

The Karnataka High Court has said that non reporting of sexual offences against a minor is a serious dereliction of duty by a registered medical practitioner as several cases of heinous offences go unnoticed and unpunished due to the lack of information.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed a petition filed under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code by Dr Chandrashekar TB for quashing an order taking cognisance of a charge sheet filed against him under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act for failing to report pregnancy of a 12-year- and-11-month-old girl.

The doctor faced prosecution under Section 21 of the POCSO Act.

He submitted that he was a reputed Gynaecologist with 35 years of practice. It was his bounden duty to attend to the patient who was brought with severe bleeding to his hospital at Chikkamagaluru by a man who claimed her to be his wife, along with her alleged parents and declared her age to be above 18 years. The doctor also submitted the victim was wearing a saree with mangalsutra at that time and her physical appearance showed that she was more than 18 years of age.

The court, however, rejected all the contentions of the doctor.

"Though the offence under Section 21 of the Act attracts imprisonment for six months, the offence by the very nature is serious. Merely because it is six months, it cannot be said that the petitioner should be left off the hook at this stage. Being a responsible doctor having close two score years of service as a Gynaecologist, who ought to have been cautious and informed the concerned authorities as mandated under Section 19 of the Act. Having not done so, is a serious dereliction," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that it is in the public domain that several cases of heinous offences committed under the Act go unnoticed due to the lack, or suppression of the information and the accused, get away easily.

"Therefore, non-reporting snowballs into a serious offence," it said.

The court declined to accept the defence of the petitioner is that he had no knowledge that the victim was only of 12 years and 11 months.

"The petitioner claims to be Gynaecologist having 35 years of practice. It is highly improbable that the petitioner at the very look of the patient did not get to know that the victim was of tender age of 12 years and 11 months and had been subjected to sexual intercourse as she had become pregnant," the bench said.

The court also said mere statement of wearing a saree at the time the victim entered the hospital is all a matter of evidence and trial, which could not be considered at this stage in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

"The offence (of sexual assault here) against others (accused) is horrendous. The information ought to have been given. Defence of ignorance by the petitioner is a matter of trial," the bench said.