Pranav B Prem

In a significant judgment, the Kerala High Court directed investigating officers to exercise caution while implicating doctors as accused under Sections 19 and 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. Justice A. Badharudeen emphasized that mechanically arraying doctors in criminal proceedings without adequate evidence amounts to "absolute injustice" and causes undue mental trauma, hampering their ability to fulfill professional duties.

Legal Context and Allegations

Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act mandate reporting crimes against minors and prescribe penalties for failure to report or record such offenses. The case concerned a 68-year-old gynecologist, who was accused of failing to report a minor's pregnancy and conducting an abortion without consent. She faced charges under Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act and Sections 312 (causing miscarriage) and 313 (causing miscarriage without consent) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The prosecution alleged that the doctor was aware of the minor's age but failed to report the pregnancy, thereby violating her statutory obligations under the POCSO Act. The doctor contested the charges, asserting that she was informed by the minor's parents that the girl was 18 years old and married. The medical records corroborated this claim, showing the victim’s age as 18.

High Court's Observations

The Court found that the consultation notes, hospital records, and the victim's statements all indicated her age as 18 years at the time of treatment. Justice Badharudeen highlighted that a doctor, in good faith, is entitled to rely on the age disclosed by a patient or their guardians. He noted that “no rowing enquiry” into a patient’s age is required unless there are apparent reasons to suspect otherwise. The Court referred to the Supreme Court’s decision in Tessy Jose & Ors. v. State of Kerala (2018), which established that doctors are not obligated to investigate or gather evidence regarding a patient's age. Mere suspicion or subsequent revelations about age cannot be used to impose criminal liability on medical professionals.

Unnecessary Trauma to Doctors

The judgment strongly criticized the practice of implicating doctors without adequate evidence. It noted that such actions create unnecessary mental distress for doctors and deter them from performing their professional duties. The Court stated:

 

“It is noticed that doctors got arrayed as accused with the aid of Section 19 of the POCSO Act mechanically, without applying the mind of the investigating officer. This is nothing but absolute injustice and putting the doctors under mental trauma of criminal prosecution and the same would stand as a rider for the doctors in doing their duties promptly. Therefore, the investigating officers are specifically directed to be more cautious when doctors' involvement is doubted in POCSO offences and implication of doctors in criminal cases under the POCSO Act shall be avoided unless relevant materials do not justify the same.”

The Court also highlighted that criminal liability cannot be imposed based on irrelevant or extraneous materials. For instance, the revelation that the victim was 15 years old, made during a subsequent medical examination, did not justify the charges against the petitioner, as the doctor had no means to ascertain the victim’s actual age at the time of consultation.

Protection of Doctors in Good Faith

Justice Badharudeen emphasized the vital role of doctors in saving lives and reiterated that their primary duty is to the patient. The Court acknowledged that the petitioner’s actions were driven by a bona fide attempt to save the minor’s life, given her severe bleeding and symptoms of miscarriage. The treatment provided was within the boundaries of medical ethics and professional responsibility.

Directions to Investigating Officers

The Court directed the Director General of Police, Kerala, to ensure that investigating officers exercise caution while invoking Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act against medical professionals. It clarified that unless there is substantial evidence of deliberate non-compliance, doctors should not be unnecessarily dragged into criminal proceedings.

Verdict

The Court quashed the proceedings against Dr. T. Ambujakshi and observed that unwarranted prosecution of doctors undermines the healthcare system.

Cause Title: Dr.T.Ambujakshi v State of Kerala

Case No: CRL.MC NO. 4728 OF 2021

Date: January-23-2025

Bench: Justice A. Badharudeen 

[Read/Download order]