Court Finds No Prima Facie Evidence of Knowledge or Apprehension of Offence Under POCSO Act
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings against Dr. Aarti Uike (Vaskle), a medical practitioner implicated under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. The bench, comprising Chief Justice Shri Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, found that there was no prima facie evidence to suggest that Dr. Uike had knowledge or reasonable apprehension of the commission of an offence under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, a prerequisite for liability under Section 21.
The case stemmed from a complaint lodged by the mother of a 15-year-old victim, leading to the registration of an FIR against a juvenile for alleged sexual assault. During the investigation, Dr. Uike was charged for conducting a sonography on the victim and allegedly failing to report the matter as required under the POCSO Act. However, the court noted that neither the FIR nor any statements recorded indicated that Dr. Uike was informed or aware of any sexual assault.
The court emphasized that mere performance of professional duties, such as conducting a diagnostic sonography, does not automatically attract criminal liability unless there is material evidence establishing the accused's knowledge or apprehension of an offence. The judgment cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sr. Tessy Jose Vs. State of Kerala, which clarified that the obligation to report under the POCSO Act arises only when the person has actual knowledge of an offence.
The High Court also highlighted that the continuation of criminal proceedings without foundational evidence would amount to an abuse of the legal process. Invoking the principles from the landmark case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the court exercised its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to quash the proceedings.
The ruling underscores the judiciary's role in preventing misuse of the law and ensuring that professionals are not held liable without substantive evidence. The case against the remaining accused will proceed independently based on the evidence presented before the trial court.
Bottom line:-
Prosecution under Section 21 of the POCSO Act requires foundational evidence establishing the accused's knowledge or apprehension of an offence under Section 19 of the Act. Mere professional duties like conducting sonography do not automatically invoke liability under Section 21 of the POCSO Act.
Statutory provision(s): Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
Dr. Aarti Uike (Vaskle) v. State of Chhattisgarh, (Chhattisgarh)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2945380
