Doctors must strictly comply with pocso on reporting offences

Subject :Polity

Section: Legislation in news

Concept :

The High Court of Karnataka emphasized the need for strict compliance with Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, particularly by doctors, to prevent offenders from escaping legal consequences.
The court highlighted that all stakeholders, including doctors, have a responsibility to report offences under the POCSO Act.

Details of the case

Charge sheet against Medical Practitioner: The charge sheet filed against a doctor was not quashed by the court. He was charged for failing to report an offence under the POCSO Act.
Treatment of a Minor: The case involved the medical treatment of a girl who was admitted to the hospital following an abortion caused by the consumption of a termination of pregnancy tablet.
Addressing Consensual Sexual Activity and Abuse: Strict compliance with reporting obligations is crucial to ensure that offences arising from consensual sexual activity, rape, or sexual abuse against children are properly addressed under the law.

Age Discrepancy and Offence Details

Age Discrepancy: The girl’s age, initially recorded as 18 years and three months in hospital documents, was later revealed to be around 12 years and 11 months in the complaint under the POCSO Act.
Sexual Intercourse and Abortion: The complaint alleged that the girl was forced to have sexual intercourse by her 21-year-old boyfriend, who administered a tablet to terminate the pregnancy, leading to heavy bleeding.
Complaint Timing: The POCSO Act complaint was filed approximately two months after the girl’s treatment at the petitioner’s hospital.

Court’s Analysis and Trial Testing

Doctor’s Disbelief Claim: The court rejected the doctor’s contention that he had no reason to disbelieve the individuals who brought the girl to the hospital and claimed she was 18 years and three months old.
Observations on Doctor’s Experience: The court found it highly improbable that the doctor, with 35 years of experience as a gynaecologist, did not recognize that the victim was of tender age.
Testing in Trial: The court emphasized that the doctor’s claim of ignorance regarding the victim’s age would be examined during the trial proceedings.