Bengaluru: Directing the Government to take necessary steps for strict implementation of Section 19 of the POCSO Act, which allows complaints of sexual abuse of minors to the concerned authorities (Police), the High Court refused to quash the case against a doctor for allegedly causing an abortion to a minor. Also, the role of doctors in strict enforcement of Section 19 is important. Failing this, perpetrators of child sexual abuse will escape the law. The Supreme Court has held in several cases that this defeats the original purpose of the Act. Therefore, the bench stated that the State Government should take appropriate action to strictly enforce Section 19.
The bench led by Justice M. Nagaprasanna, which heard the petition filed by the head of a hospital in Chikkamagaluru, Dr. Chandrasekhar, dismissed the petition and gave this direction. According to Section 19 of the POCSO Act, the local police should be informed without delay after receiving information about violence against minors. However, the applicant doctor did not know that the age of the victim was 12 years. Therefore, he said that he is not ready to file a complaint. However, the petitioner is a Gynaecologist with about 35 years of service. He explained that he is currently continuing. He said that the victim was wearing a saree and was given treatment considering her age.
The HC said crime against the petitioner is heinous and the trial has to continue.
Also, doctors who have served the Government for many years should be vigilant in relation to violence against minors and have the responsibility to inform the police. The Court opined that not doing this is a serious omission.
The 12-year-old victim along with some relatives came to the petitioner’s hospital on December 17, 2022 with severe bleeding and sought treatment. The applicant doctor, who had treated her, took steps not to harm her life and discharged her from the hospital after two days. One month after the incident, a complaint was filed at the Belthangady Police Station in Dakshina Kannada District. However, the petitioner was not made an accused in this complaint.
After this, the police, who continued the investigation, issued a notice to the applicant on February 17, 2023 regarding the incident. Also, it was explained that the 12 years and 11 months old victim was made to undergo an abortion. The petitioner was interrogated and a charge sheet was filed under POCSO Act 17 and 21.
Chandrashekhar had approached the High Court seeking to quash the charge sheet and the case. During the hearing, senior advocate P. P. Hegde, who argued for the petitioner, said that there was no intention to do any wrong to the petitioner doctor. When the victim was arriving at the hospital, she was bleeding profusely and the situation was serious. On this occasion, three or four people who came with the victim introduced themselves as her relatives, one as her husband. Also, it was explained that the victim is more than 18 years old. So the victim had an abortion to save her life. Therefore, he requested that the case against him should be quashed. But court rejected and ordered to continue trial.