Pradyumna Satish 

The first accused subjected the minor victim to repeated sexual intercourse, leading to charges under IPC Sections 376(2)(n), 376(3), 376(2)(f), and 109, along with Sections 6, 6(1) r/w 5(l), 5(n), and 5(j)(ii) of the POCSO Act and Section 75 of the JJ Act. 

The second accused, a doctor, examined the victim when she was brought to the hospital for medical attention. At the time of consultation, the victim’s age was recorded as 18 years based on the information provided by the victim and her parents, who accompanied her. There was no indication that the doctor had any reason to question or verify the stated age. The victim was suffering from excessive bleeding and showing symptoms of a miscarriage. The doctor proceeded with medical intervention to stabilize her condition and complete the miscarriage to prevent further health complications. 

According to the medical records, the victim and her parents informed the doctor that she was 18 years old and married, and the doctor had no apparent reason to doubt this information. The abortion was performed as a necessary medical procedure to save the victim’s life, given that she arrived at the hospital already experiencing severe bleeding and signs of a miscarriage. There is no evidence in the records suggesting that the doctor had knowledge that the victim was a minor at the time of treatment. 

Regardless, the doctor faced charges under Section 21 r/w 19 of the POCSO Act for allegedly failing to report the pregnancy of a minor to the authorities, as well as under Sections 312 and 313 of the IPC for performing an abortion without proper consent.  

The court relied on precedents from the Madras and Karnataka High Courts, as well as the Supreme Court’s decision in Tessy Jose & Ors. v. State of Kerala, which established that doctors are not required to verify a patient’s age beyond what is disclosed unless there is a clear reason to doubt it. The Supreme Court held that a doctor acts based on the age declared by the patient and is not obligated to conduct further inquiry unless the stated age appears prima facie unconvincing. 

In the present case, the victim’s medical records indicated her age as 18 years, and there was no evidence suggesting that the doctor had reason to suspect otherwise. Since the doctor was not aware that the victim was a minor, the failure to report the pregnancy to the police under Section 19(1) of the POCSO Act did not constitute an offense under Section 21. 

Regarding the charges under IPC Sections 312 and 313, the court found that the victim arrived at the hospital with severe bleeding and symptoms of miscarriage. The doctor provided medical treatment in good faith to stabilize her condition and complete the miscarriage, rather than performing an abortion voluntarily. 

Given the absence of evidence establishing the doctor’s knowledge of the victim’s minority and the emergency nature of the medical intervention, the court held that the prosecution lacked sufficient grounds. On this rationale, the case against the doctor was quashed. 

The court observed that doctors are frequently implicated in POCSO cases under Section 21 r/w Section 19 for allegedly failing to report crimes, often without proper scrutiny. It emphasized that doctors have a primary duty to save lives and should not be mechanically charged under Section 19 without a clear, deliberate omission to report a crime. Investigating officers must carefully assess the evidence and ensure that prosecution is justified before implicating doctors. Unwarranted criminal proceedings cause undue mental stress and may hinder doctors from performing their duties effectively. The court directed investigators to exercise caution and avoid implicating doctors in POCSO cases unless there is sufficient material to support such action. 

Case Title: Dr. Ambujakshi v. State of Kerala 

Citation: Crl M.C. No. 4728/2021 

Click here to read/download the judgement.