S.21 POCSO Act | Doctor not responsible for ‘verifying’ age of victim or ‘establishing’ whether offense committed: Madras High Court

“As the Honorable Court of First Instance clearly stated, the plaintiff bore no responsibility for verifying the age of the victim girl or establishing whether crimes had been committed. In light of this, the court has no hesitation in concluding that the provisions of Section 21(1) of the POCSO Act do not apply to the petitioner.” the court said.

Justice Murali Shankar noted that the case against the doctor was registered solely at the request of the actual applicant, the sister of the minor, and without conducting any preliminary investigation. The court added that such treatment of health workers could deter them from taking risks to save patients’ lives. The court lamented the recent attack on doctors and noted that false complaints against doctors can lead to police harassment, which in turn can cause them immense stress, damage their reputations and affect their ability to practice.

“While acknowledging the existence of quacks and corporate hospitals, it is important to recognize that most medical practitioners dedicate their lives to serving humanity with compassion and expertise. Unfortunately, false complaints against doctors can lead to unwanted police harassment, which can cause enormous stress, damage their reputation and even affect their ability to practice medicine. It is critical to give physicians the respect and dignity they deserve, but failure to do so can have devastating consequences for society, including demotivation among health care professionals, limiting access to quality care, and eroding trust in the medical community.“, the court noted.

In this case, the doctor along with two other persons were charged with offenses under Section 5(1), 5(j)(ii), 6(1) and 21(1) of the POCSO Act and Section 312 of the IPC. The prosecution’s case was that the victim, a 17-year-old girl, was brought to the applicant’s hospital by her maternal aunt and on examination it was found that she was 9 weeks pregnant. After that, during the abortion, the victim could not cooperate, severe bleeding occurred. Thus, she was rushed to Trichy Government Hospital where she died despite treatment. Thus, at the request of the victim’s sister, a complaint was filed.

The appellant alleged that when the aunt brought the victim to the hospital, the appellant asked about her age and was told that the victim was 18 years old and unmarried. The plaintiff also alleged that when the victim and her aunt insisted on terminating the fetus, she refused and told them that she would have to report it to the police and the district inspectorate as the victim was unmarried and after informing them, the victim and her aunt left the hospital

The plaintiff also stated that when the victim and her aunt again came to the hospital complaining of dizziness and weakness, she started IV fluids because the victim’s hemoglobin and blood pressure were low. She also claimed that she had taken all measures to ensure that the victim was taken to a government hospital in Trichy. Thus, she maintained that the allegations in the FIR were completely false and that she was innocent.

The petitioner also submitted that an essential element of the POCSO Act is the minority status of the victim and in this case the victim had stated that she was 18 years old. It was argued that in this case the victim’s age was inconsistent with the records and thus the police’s reliance on the sister’s statement alone was insufficient.

The court noted that the doctor is not responsible for checking the age of the victim or establishing whether a crime has been committed. The court added that with regard to the offense under Section 312 of the IPC, the prosecution had not alleged that the plaintiff or its staff at the hospital had committed any act which could have caused the death of the victim. The court noted that the prosecution had failed to present any evidence against the doctor, so permission to prosecute would be unnecessary, unjustified and an abuse of the law. Thus, the court was inclined to proceed in the case and granted the doctor’s request.

The plaintiff’s lawyer: Mr. Isaac Mohanlal, Senior Advisor M/s. Isaac Chambers

Defendant’s lawyer: Mr. E. Anthony Sahaya Prabahar Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. G. Karuppasamy Pandian for Mr.T. Navanitha Krishnan