The
non-reporting of sexual assault against a minor despite knowledge is a
"serious crime" and an attempt to shield the offenders, the Supreme
Court said on Wednesday.
The apex court said prompt and proper reporting of
commission of offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences
(POCSO) Act is of utmost importance and the failure to do so would defeat the
very purpose and object of the law.
The top court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment
of April last year quashing an FIR and the charge sheet regarding a medical
practitioner who allegedly did not inform the authority about sexual
assault against several minor girls at a hostel despite having knowledge
about it.
A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and C T Ravikumar
observed it is true that the FIR and the charge sheet still remain in respect
of other accused in the case.
"But then, non-reporting of sexual assault against
a minor child despite knowledge is a serious crime and more often than not, it
is an attempt to shield the offenders of the crime of sexual assault, the bench
said in its 28-page judgment.
The apex court delivered its verdict on an appeal
filed by the state of Maharashtra, through the police, against the high court
judgment.
The bench, while referring to a previous verdict
delivered by the top court, noted it was observed in the judgment that
"this is an unfortunate case where the provisions of the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are rendered simply a pious hope of the
Parliament and a teasing illusion for the appellant."
"Even
while, borrowing those words, we may say, we are not peeved, but certainly
pained, as a legitimate prosecution under another Act viz, the Protection of
Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, has been throttled at the threshold by
the exercise of power under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(CrPC), without permitting the materials in support to it to see the light of
the day in respect of misprision of sexual assault against minor tribal girls
in a girls' hostel, the bench said.
Section 482 of the CrPC deals with inherent powers of
the high court.
The apex court observed that FIR in the matter came to
be registered on the accusation of commission of sexual offences against minor
tribal girls, who were students of a school in Rajura and were residing in its
girls' hostel.
It noted that the medical practitioner, on whose plea
the high court had delivered the verdict, was arraigned as the sixth accused in
the case essentially for the alleged failure to report the commission of
offence under the POCSO Act in compliance with the legal obligation under the
provision of the law.
The bench also noted that during the investigation, it
was found that 17 minor girls were allegedly abused and the medical
practitioner was appointed for treatment of girls admitted to the hostel.
It said the case of the police is that some among the
17 victims have given statements that the medical practitioner was informed of
the sexual assault on them.
The top court observed that exercise of power under
section 482 of the CrPC is an exception and not the rule and it is to be
exercised to do real and substantial justice for the administration of which
alone courts exist.
The bench said provisions of the POCSO Act would
reveal that it also aims to ensure that such offenders are not spared and
should be properly booked.
"To achieve the avowed purpose, a legal
obligation for reporting of offence under the POCSO Act is cast upon on a
person to inform the relevant authorities specified thereunder when he/she has
knowledge that an offence under the Act had been committed," it said.
The bench said medical examination of the victim as
also the accused would give many important clues in a case that falls under the
POCSO Act.
"There can be no two views that in relation to
sexual offences medical evidence has much corroborative value, it said.
It said if the FIR and the materials collected during
the probe discloses the commission of a prima facie case under provisions of
the POCSO Act, the truthfulness, sufficiency or admissibility of the evidence
are not matters falling within the purview of exercise of power under section
482 of the CrPC and undoubtedly they are matters to be done by the trial court
at the time of trial.
While allowing the appeal, it said the high court's
verdict resulting in the quashing of FIR and charge sheet throttling the
prosecution at the threshold, without allowing the materials in support of it
to see the light of the day, cannot be said to be as an exercise done to secure
interests of justice.