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.Get the latest India news and live updates. Download the TOI App.End of ArticleFollow Us On Social MediaVideosPM Modi Praises Australia’s Under-16 Social Media Ban, Says ‘India Learning From It’Flood Fury Disrupts Cities Nationwide, IMD Issues Red Alerts Amid Relentless RainfallAustralia To Return Three Historic Indian Artefacts During PM Modi’s VisitTensions In MVA As Sanjay Raut Slams Sharad Pawar For Holding Meeting At Eknath Shinde’s OfficeIndia, Myanmar Review Border Security, Intelligence Sharing’Hit With Iron Rod’: Bengaluru PT Teacher Booked After Allegedly Beating 12-Year-Old To DeathIndian Railways Clarifies Digital Ticket Rules: Only Original Rail One App Ticket Will Be AcceptedIndia and Australia Finalise Uranium Export Arrangement Under Civil Nuclear AgreementUGC-NET Under Scanner After Alleged Paper Leak; Education Ministry Seeks NTA InvestigationDRDO Successfully Tests Pinaka Long-Range Guided Rocket; Hits Target With Pinpoint Accuracy123PhotostoriesWho was ‘Miss Dior’? The fascinating woman behind Christian Dior’s most iconic perfume8 nicknames for white dogs that perfectly match their personality and charm7 Plants with leaves and flowers that naturally stain and dyeFrom a Rs 2.5 crore watch to Shikhar Pahariya’s name in her mehendi: Inside Janhvi Kapoor’s most talked-about moments at Anshula Kapoor’s weddingFeeling better isn’t a reason to stop antibiotics: Doctor warns the habit is fueling the rise of deadly superbugsShould you apply coconut oil before or after washing your hair? Experts finally settle the debate10 international baby names that work across different culturesAamir Khan’s rare ruby wedding ring for Gauri Spratt took 256 hours and 131 artisans to createPowerful life lessons Japanese parents teach their children that the rest of the world can learn fromClear your bowels naturally every morning with these 10 foods123Hot PicksIndia-AustraliaTiesOmar AbdullahMorocco VS FranceMahadev AppNET paper leakMonsoon trackerStock market todayStrait of HormuzAP DEECET rank cardTop TrendingCrude oilRamesh MhatreUS Section 301FIFA World Cup 2026India u19 vs Sri Lanka U19Andhra Hospital MurderWeather todayDelhi NCR rainBihar BDO Wife MurderIran war
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.
