Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 – Sections 19 & 21 – Mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse – School authorities – Discharge – Whether a school authority, on receiving information from the child regarding sexual assault, can withhold reporting by first conducting its own internal inquiry to ascertain the truth of the allegation? – Held, No.
The victim, an eight-year-old school student, disclosed to her elder sister that she had been sexually assaulted by a senior student in the school premises. The information was conveyed to the Head Girl and thereafter to the school authorities. Instead of reporting the incident to the police as mandated under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, the school authorities allegedly examined the child, questioned the juvenile offender, constituted an internal committee to observe the conduct of the victim and the offender, and instructed students not to disclose the incident. The Trial Court discharged the school authorities of offences under Sections 176, 201 and 120-B IPC read with Section 21(2) of the POCSO Act, and the High Court affirmed the discharge holding that the authorities lacked "knowledge" of the offence. Whether school authorities, after receiving information from the child regarding sexual assault, can avoid their statutory duty to report by conducting an internal inquiry or by concluding that the allegation was not established? – Held, No.
The Supreme Court held that the expression "knowledge" occurring in Section 19 of the POCSO Act must receive a purposive interpretation consistent with the object of protecting children from sexual abuse. The statutory obligation to report arises once a person receives credible information from the child or otherwise becomes aware of the commission of a POCSO offence. The Act does not authorise school authorities or institutional heads to undertake their own inquiry, assess the truthfulness of the complaint, or postpone reporting until they are personally satisfied that an offence has occurred. Such an approach defeats the legislative mandate of prompt reporting and timely intervention for the protection of the child. At the stage of framing of charge, the Court is only required to determine whether the materials collected during investigation raise a strong suspicion regarding commission of the offence and not whether the prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Since the police report and statements recorded under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC disclosed prima facie material suggesting deliberate suppression of the complaint and failure to report the offence despite knowledge thereof, the discharge of the school authorities was unsustainable. The orders of the Trial Court and the High Court were accordingly set aside and the matter was remitted for trial.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 19 of the POCSO Act, the statutory duty to report arises immediately upon a person, including the head or persons in charge of an educational institution, acquiring knowledge of the commission of a POCSO offence through the child's disclosure or other credible information. The institution has no authority to conduct an internal fact-finding inquiry, assess the truthfulness of the allegation, or delay reporting until it reaches its own satisfaction. Failure to promptly report such information attracts liability under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, and where the prosecution materials disclose a strong suspicion of deliberate suppression of the offence, discharge at the threshold is impermissible.
No comments:
Post a Comment