Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

"Failure to Report Offenses under POCSO Act: Doctors' Responsibility, Ignorance Not Accepted: Karnataka HC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Karnataka HC has underscored the seriousness of failure to report offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act. The judgment specifically highlights the responsibility of doctors in reporting such offenses and emphasizes the need for strict compliance with Section 19 of the Act. The court rejected the defence of ignorance and urged doctors to fulfil their reporting obligations without fail.

According to the judgment, the case involved a gynaecologist who claimed to be unaware of the victim's age, which was crucial in determining the severity of the offense. However, the court declined to accept the defence, stating that it was highly improbable for an experienced doctor not to recognize the victim's tender age and the signs of sexual abuse.

The court quoted previous judgments, including one that highlighted the importance of reporting offenses, especially by doctors. In this regard, the court stated, "Failure to report offense under the POCSO Act is a serious crime and an attempt to shield the offenders. Strict compliance with Section 19 and reporting of offenses is crucial to prevent child abuse and protect the rights and well-being of minors."

The court also referred to Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which imposes punishment, including imprisonment for up to six months or a fine, for the failure to report offenses. Despite the relatively short duration of imprisonment, the court emphasized that the nature of the offense itself warranted serious consideration.

Furthermore, the judgment cited the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which places a specific duty on the state to protect children from all forms of sexual exploitation and abuse. The court highlighted the need for doctors to fulfill their reporting obligations, as non-reporting not only shields offenders but also undermines the objectives of the POCSO Act.

High court directed strict compliance with Section 19, particularly by doctors involved in the medical termination of pregnancies of minors. The judgment serves as a reminder that reporting offenses under the POCSO Act is a critical responsibility that should not be taken lightly. The court's observations, while specific to the petitioner's case, hold significant implications for all cases falling under the purview of the Act.

DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2023

CHANDRASHEKAR T.B.vs  STATE OF KARNATAKA

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Dr.-Chandershekhar-Vs-State-Karntakta-HC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News