Kerala High Court Rules Medical Examinations of Children with Parental Consent Exempt Under POCSO Act Provisions

The Kerala High Court has also struck down the criminal prosecution of a senior pediatrician, who is an 80 year old doctor and whose case involved alleged sexual assault under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in a historic decision. The victim was a minor girl who was involved in allegations on two occasions when she sought medical attention from a doctor. As the court compared the facts of the case, like the existence of relatives of the minor at the time of the examinations as well as no indication of sexual intentions, all these were carefully considered before making the decision.

Background to the case

Special Case No. 735 of 2023 against the petitioner under the POCSO Act with Fast Track Special Court in the City of Kozhikode has accused the petitioner, a long-time pediatrician since 1970 and has pleaded guilty. The criminal case was a result of an FIR registered by the Police of Kozhikode Kasaba on the statement of a 10th-standard girl who presented herself to the doctor complaining of abdominal and chest pains on April 11 and April 17, 2023.

The doctor was alleged to have touched her improperly during the said consultation, and she regarded that as a way of sexually assaulting her. On the first account, according to the girl, her mother was there, and on the second, her older sister. In spite of this, the petitioner was involved in cases involving stuffing his hands beneath her clothes and squeezing her breasts and the navel region.

Petitioner’s Argument

The petitioner firmly rejected the existence of any misconduct and said that the evidence was not valid and constituted a blatant abuse of the law. His argument was that the activities undertaken were normal clinical operations when issuing medical examinations. He also insisted that both incidents happened with either the mother or the elder sister of the victim being at hand; therefore, the incident was fully open and without any objective of hurting or offending.

The petitioner’s counsel contended that filing such criminal charges against a veteran doctor, who was merely performing his duty as a physician, was unjust and an abuse of legal provisions. The argument was that the physical contact to make the clinical assessment would always be needed and medical ethics was being adhered to both times.

Legal Provisions Involved

The charges in the case were based on

• Section 354A(1) (i): It is concerned with unwelcome and overt sexual advances and physical contact.
• Sections 9(e) and 9(l) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act, 2012: Concerning aggravated sexual assault of a child.
• Section 41 of POCSO Act: offers immunity to the medical practitioners regarding the prosecution under the Sections 3 to 13 of this Act in case the medical examination is done under the permission of the parents.

Analysis and finding by Court

Analyzing all the evidence produced by the prosecution and statements given by the victim, justice G. Girish made an attentive study of the process after hearing both sides of the case. The judge observed that

• Medical examination was provided in the presence of the mother of the victim or of her elder sister, and hence it is hard to assume malicious motives.
• The victim also had genuine medical issues concerning chest and abdominal pains, as such areas were properly inspected by the doctor.
• Nothing was conclusively mentioned either in the statement to the police authority or in the statement before the Magistrate under section 164 of Cr.PC that there was any sexual intention on the part of the doctor.

Although the victim had reported the contact as a bad touch, the court noticed that this kind of assumption cannot be used in law to succeed in finding criminal intent. There was no possibility to rule out the possibility of misunderstanding of the medical act by a young adolescent.

Furthermore, the court also focused on the part played by Section 41 of the POCSO Act, which gives protection to medical practitioners in cases where medical examinations have been performed with the consent of a parent or guardian. The fact that both the examinations in this case were performed under such like consent and in the presence of relatives ruled out any case to be brought up in court by the court.

Medical Ethics and Legal Protection Observations

Another topic of great significance in society is also reflected in the judgment: that society must strike the proper balance between ensuring that children are not subjected to real abuse on the one hand and protecting medical practitioners who act in good faith in their professional practices on the other. The decision highlights the significance of the existence of laws, such as POCSO, to protect children, but such acts cannot be used against a person without any substantive evidence to prove their guilt.

The court even added that the case demanded keen comprehension as opposed than mindless prosecution. Adolescent misinterpretation, though not unique, should not be taken as the main cause of criminal actions without substantial evidence of the wrong action.

Final verdict

Finally, the Kerala High Court granted the petition and set aside all actions against the physician. The case which had occasioned untold distress and irreparably ruined the reputation of a well-known pediatrician has been dropped and the court emphasized on the fact that there was nothing in the prosecution record which required any further steps.

The decision serves as a guideline that the law must be used effectively especially when it reaches sensitive situations like the one involving children and medical practitioners. Even the implication of false information, whether known to be such or not, is a matter of very serious consequence and must be very closely looked into before such a step is taken.

The importance of the judgment

The decision not only relieves the accused but also gives some guidance in the future on handling such cases. It emphasizes that intent and evidence can be used to determine purported cases of sexual misconduct as defined by the POCSO. Medical practitioners who practice in an area that is physically sensitive are supposed to be given the benefit of the doubt where there is no shortage of intention of doing an act or where the steps are done with consent.

The in-depth judgment passed by Justice G. Girish is also a balanced judgment, and justice is done without overlooking the safety of the two children or the professional pride of the two concerned persons.

The decision on XXX v. The case of the State of Kerala & Another is a landmark decision which gives insight into the sensitivity on the part of the judiciary and reasonable application of legal principles. It provides an evident idea that the law is supposed to guard the innocent, and due diligence should be upheld before pursuing a case of crime, particularly the ones where the boundary between the task (as a pro) and responsibility as a person is potentially confused.

The decision is likely to be the precedent for future cases of accusations addressed to medical professionals, reminding all people involved in the process of finding justice about the necessity of reasonable judgments, empathic approaches, and clarity.