Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case Patta Without SDM’s Prior Approval Is Void Ab Initio And Cannot Be Cancelled – It Never Legally Existed: Allahabad High Court Natural Guardian Means Legal Guardian: Custody Cannot Be Denied to Father Without Strong Reason: Orissa High Court Slams Family Court for Technical Rejection Affidavit Is Not a Caste Certificate: Madhya Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Zila Panchayat Member's Election for Failing Eligibility Under OBC Quota Confession Recorded By DCP Is Legally Valid Under KCOCA – Bengaluru DCP Holds Rank Equivalent To SP: Karnataka High Court Difference of Opinion Cannot End in Death: Jharkhand High Court Commutes Death Sentence in Maoist Ambush Killing SP Pakur and Five Policemen Mere Presence Of Beneficiary During Execution Does Not Cast Suspicion On Will: Delhi High Court Litigants Have No Right to Choose the Bench: Bombay High Court Rules Rule 3A Is Mandatory, Sends Writ to Kolhapur Testimony Must Be of Sterling Quality: Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Grandfather in Rape Case, Citing Unnatural Conduct and Infirm Evidence Cheating and Forgery Taint Even Legal Funds: No Safe Haven in Law for Laundered Money: Bombay High Court Final Maintenance Is Not Bound by Interim Orders – Section 125 Determination Must Be Based on Real Evidence: Delhi 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