Allows Headmistress’ Prosecution For Not Informing Cops Of Rape Plaint
NEW DELHI: Supreme Court Thursday ruled that any person who has knowledge that an offence under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (Pocso) Act has been committed but fails to report it to the police is liable for punishment under the law, and allowed prosecution of the headmistress of a school who did not inform the police despite a student telling her that she had been raped.Noting that the word “knowledge” has not been defined under the Pocso Act, a bench of Justices Manoj Misra and K V Viswanathan said the words “has knowledge that such an offence has been committed” cannot be limited to direct knowledge of the commission of the offence, but would include awareness of its commission based on direct information received from the victim.”A conjoint reading of Section 19 and Section 21 of the Pocso Act, inter alia, indicates that if any person has knowledge that an offence has been committed under the Act, it is the mandate of law to provide such information to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police. If such person, other than a child, fails to report, such person is liable to punishment under Section 21,” the bench said.”Thus, in our view, if we construe the expression ‘knowledge’ as something which a person knows on the basis of his own senses, and exclude knowledge based on receipt of credible information, the purpose of the Pocso Act would stand defeated. We say so because the purpose of the Act is not only to punish the offender but also to protect a child from sexual offences. Besides, it is a matter of common understanding that sexual offences are rarely committed in public gaze. These offences usually occur in the confines of secrecy,” the court said.”For the purposes of the Act, when a child victim reports to a person that he or she has been subjected to an offence, or is likely to be subjected to an offence, punishable under the Act, it can safely be concluded that the person to whom such information is provided by the child victim has knowledge that such an offence has been committed or is likely to be committed,” the bench added.In the case before it, the child victim had disclosed information about the incident directly to four persons: her elder sister, a friend and the head girl (YS) of the institution, all of them minors, and the headmistress of the school. The headmistress examined her private parts but rejected her complaint. A few months later, the victim’s parents came to know about the incident, following which an FIR was lodged.As three of the four persons who had knowledge of the incident were minors and could not be prosecuted under the law, the court allowed prosecution only of the headmistress for failing to report the case to the police.
