Child sexual abuse must be reported to authorities without waiting for independent verification: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Thursday observed that anyone who directly receives information from a child about sexual assault cannot delay reporting the incident to the relevant authorities under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act).

A Bench of Justices Manoj Misra and KV Viswanathan said that information received directly from a child victim must be treated as credible for the purpose of the mandatory reporting under Section 19 of the POCSO Act and the person receiving such information should not wait to seek independent verification of same before reporting it to the police.

"An investigation to ascertain whether such an incident has actually occurred or not must take place after reporting of the incident and not before, as such an exercise would defeat the very purpose for which the POCSO Act has been enacted," the Court said.

Otherwise, if investigative exercise is carried out by a person before reporting the incident, the evidence of such an offence may disappear, resulting in the accused going scot-free, the Court said.

"Information regarding commission of an offence punishable under the Act has to be provided at the earliest so that necessary steps could be taken for medical examination, and for protective measures, if required," the Court emphasised.

The Court made the observations while restoring criminal proceedings against a school headmistress who had directly heard from a 7-year-old child about sexual assault at a school in Arunachal Pradesh but failed to report the matter to the relevant authorities.

The incident involved sexual abuse of seven-year-old girl student at a residential school by a boy from class VIII studying in the same school. The incident allegedly happened in November 2019.

According to the prosecution, the victim-child informed her elder sister, a friend and the school’s head-girl. The head-girl then took the matter to the headmistress.

The prosecution claimed that the headmistress and other staff members thereafter examined the victim child and questioned the boy, who denied the allegation. The school authorities allegedly decided to observe the conduct of the two children instead of reporting the incident.

The matter came to light around five months later when the child complained of pain and her mother lodged a first information report (FIR).

A trial court discharged the school officials in February 2021. Gauhati High Court’s Itanagar Bench upheld that decision in March 2022. The child’s mother then moved the Supreme Court.

In judgment delivered on July 9, the top court said that “knowledge” under Section 19 is not restricted to personally witnessing an offence. It includes awareness arising from credible information concerning the commission of a POCSO offence, the Court said.

The Court rejected the argument that the absence of visible signs of sexual assault justified the failure to report the allegation.

It added that though preliminary questions could be put to a child when the information is unclear or confusing, such questioning must only seek clarity and should not be aimed at discarding the complaint.

On merits, the Court found sufficient material for grave suspicion against the headmistress for framing charges under Section 21 of the POCSO Act and Section 176 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The provisions criminalize non-reporting of certain offences.

However, it declined to restore proceedings against other school staff. There was no material to show that the child had directly informed them or that they had conspired to suppress the incident, the Court found.

The Court thus partly allowed the plea and directed the trial court to proceed against the headmistress in accordance with for the offences under POCSO Act and IPC.

The appellant was represented by Senior Advocate Jitendra Mohan Sharma with advocates Rajiv Mangla, Monika, Hrithik Jarodia, Amrit Pradhan and Akshat Sharma.

The head mistress was represented by advocate Satya Kam Sharma.

The other respondents were represented advocates Jaikriti S Jadeja, Shivang Goel, Ishaan Aggarwal and Ojas Mittal.