Recently, the Kerala High Court has brought into sharp relief the delicate balance between medical practice and allegations of sexual misconduct, particularly under stringent statutes like the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). In a meticulously reasoned order, the Court quashed criminal proceedings against an 80-year-old pediatrician, stressing the necessity of establishing sexual intent in such cases. This decision offers a compelling examination of the interplay between statutory protections for children and the legitimate conduct of medical examinations.
The petitioner, a pediatrician since 1970, faced allegations of sexual assault under Section 354A(1)(i) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 9(e), 9(l) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The accusations arose from incidents on April 8 and 17, 2023, when a minor girl, studying in Class X, visited his dispensary for treatment of chest and abdominal pain. The prosecution alleged that, during clinical examinations, the petitioner inappropriately touched the girl's chest and abdominal areas. Notably, the examinations occurred in the presence of the victim's mother on the first occasion and her elder sister on the second. The Police registered a case, and a final report was filed before the Special Court under the POCSO Act.
The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated, asserting that his actions were strictly within the ambit of clinical examination protocols. He emphasized that the examinations were conducted in the presence of the victim’s immediate relatives, negating any inference of improper intent. The petitioner argued that the proceedings constituted an abuse of legal process, warranting their quashing. The State, represented by the Public Prosecutor, relied on the victim’s statements to the police and under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, which detailed the alleged acts of assault.
The Court, presided over by Justice G. Girish, meticulously analyzed the prosecution’s evidence to ascertain the presence of sexual intent, a prerequisite for offences under Section 354A(1)(i) IPC and Section 7 of the POCSO Act. The Court observed, “It is too hard to believe that the petitioner would have resorted to sexual advances upon the victim in the close presence of the victim’s mother and elder sister.” It further noted the absence of explicit indications in the victim’s statements suggesting sexual intent, stating, “Neither the statement given by the victim to the Police, nor her statements to the learned Magistrate under Section 164 Cr.PC, contained any indication that the alleged act committed by the petitioner was with sexual intent.”
The Court highlighted the context of the victim’s medical complaints, which included chest and abdominal pain, and the petitioner’s initial use of a stethoscope before manual examination. It remarked, “The chances of that adolescent girl getting misunderstood about the act of the petitioner, cannot be ignored.” Invoking Section 41 of the POCSO Act, which exempts medical examinations conducted with parental consent from the ambit of Sections 3 to 13, the Court held, “As far as the present case is concerned, the medical examination of the victim was conducted with the consent of her mother as well as her elder sister.”
While allowing the petition, the Court quashed the proceedings, which reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to safeguarding legitimate medical practice while ensuring that allegations under protective statutes are substantiated by clear evidence of culpable intent.
Case Title: XXX Vs. State Of Kerala And Anr.
Case No.: CRL.MC NO. 3538 OF 2025
Coram: Justice G. Girish
Advocate for Petitioner: Advocates Nirmal S, Veena Hari, Keerthy Johnson, Mintu Jose, Gini George, and Aishwarya Shivakumar
Advocate for Respondent: Sr. Public Prosecutor Pushpalatha M.K
Read Order @ Lateslaws.com
Picture Source :
