Pranav B Prem

The Kerala High Court, in a significant judgment delivered by Justice K. Babu, has clarified the legal position concerning the obligation to report offences under Section 19 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The Court held that when a person is tried for failure to report such offences, they cannot rely on Section 39 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to claim immunity by citing a "reasonable excuse." The judgment firmly establishes that the provisions of the POCSO Act override those of the CrPC wherever inconsistencies arise.

The case arose from allegations against the petitioner, a former chairman of the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) in Thrissur, who faced charges under Section 21 read with Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act for allegedly failing to report a child abuse case in 2014. The petitioner contended that he had informed the police telephonically and endorsed the necessary actions in the relevant file. However, the prosecution alleged that the petitioner had not fulfilled the reporting mandate as required by the POCSO Act.

The Court delved into the interplay between Section 19 of the POCSO Act and Section 39 of the CrPC. Section 19 imposes an unqualified obligation on any individual who has knowledge or apprehension of an offence against a child to report it to the appropriate authorities. In contrast, Section 39 of the CrPC allows individuals to refrain from reporting certain offences if they have a "reasonable excuse." The Court observed that this difference is critical, as the POCSO Act does not permit such exceptions. Non-reporting under Section 19 of the POCSO Act is also treated as an independent offence, highlighting the stricter legislative intent behind the Act.

Justice K. Babu emphasized that the POCSO Act, being a special statute enacted to protect children from sexual offences, must take precedence over the general provisions of the CrPC. The non-obstante clause in Section 19, which begins with “notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,” explicitly overrides conflicting provisions in the CrPC, including the allowance for "reasonable excuse" in Section 39. The Court held that the primary objective of the POCSO Act is to ensure the protection and well-being of children, and any interpretation must align with this legislative intent.

The Court also considered the broader implications of the reporting obligation. It noted that Section 19 of the POCSO Act is designed to counter societal tendencies to remain silent about child abuse due to stigma, community pressure, or other personal considerations. This obligation is cast universally, applying to any individual with knowledge of an offence, regardless of their official capacity. The Court further observed that the mandatory reporting provision aims to prevent perpetrators from evading accountability and to ensure timely intervention for the protection of children.

In its judgment, the Court unequivocally ruled that a person accused of failing to report under Section 19 of the POCSO Act cannot rely on Section 39 of the CrPC to escape liability by citing a reasonable excuse. It declared that the POCSO Act’s provisions prevail in such instances and rejected the petitioner’s arguments for quashing the proceedings.

Cause Title: George V/S State of Kerala

Case No: Crl MC No. 5970/2021

Date: December-20-2024

Bench: Justice K. Babu

[Read/Download order]