Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

"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