Quashes POCSO Case Against 79-Year-Old Doctor

The Kerala High Court quashed the POCSO proceedings against an elderly pediatrician accused of sexual assault during a clinical examination. The Court found that the alleged acts took place in the presence of the girl’s mother and sister, with no evidence of sexual intent, and observed that the situation might have stemmed from a misunderstanding.

Brief Facts of the Case:

Dr. C.M. Aboobacker, a 79-year-old pediatrician, was accused under IPC Section 354A(1)(i) and Sections 9(e), 9(l) read with Section 10 of the POCSO Act. The allegation was that he touched the breasts and navel of a minor girl during clinical examinations on two occasions (11.04.2023 and 17.04.2023), in the presence of her mother and elder sister respectively. The girl initially did not report the incidents immediately, and after discussing them with her sister, a complaint was filed, leading to the registration of a POCSO case.

Legal Provisions Involved in the Case:

• Section 354A(1)(i) – Physical contact with sexual overtures (IPC)
• Sections 9(e), 9(l) r/w Section 10 – Aggravated sexual assault under POCSO Act
• Section 7 – Definition of sexual assault (POCSO Act)
• Section 41 – Exemption for medical treatment done with parental consent under POCSO

Arguments of Petitioner and Respondent:

Petitioner (Doctor):

• Claimed innocence and maintained that all actions were strictly part of the clinical examination.
• Emphasized that both instances occurred in the presence of the victim’s close relatives, with full consent.
• Argued that the allegations stemmed from misinterpretation of routine medical procedures.
• Sought quashing of the proceedings as an abuse of legal process.

Respondent (State):

• Relied on the victim’s statements given to the police and Magistrate under Section 164 CrPC.
• Argued that the victim identified the doctor’s actions as “bad touch”, indicating discomfort and lack of consent.
• Opposed the petition to quash, citing the seriousness of the allegations under POCSO.

Court’s Observation:

• The Court found no suggestion in the victim’s statements that the doctor acted with sexual intent.
• Recognized the presence of the mother and sister during both examinations as a significant factor against the likelihood of inappropriate behavior.
• Noted the medical context of the visits, which involved complaints of chest and abdominal pain, justifying the examination scope.
• Highlighted that Section 41 of the POCSO Act exempts acts done during medical treatment with parental consent.
• Stated that relying on a solitary casual remark about “bad touch” would be unsafe and improper for initiating or continuing criminal prosecution.

Conclusion of the Judgment:

The High Court allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings in S.C.No.735/2023 pending before the Special Court under the POCSO Act, Kozhikode, ruling that the material on record did not support a prima facie case of sexual assault.

Comments from the author of this website

This case brings attention to a growing concern among professionals—how easily clinical or routine actions can be interpreted as misconduct in a highly sensitive environment. When men, particularly those in caregiving or educational roles, are accused of inappropriate behavior, the default response often leans toward suspicion, even in the absence of clear intent or evidence. Once an allegation is made, it sets in motion a legal process that is emotionally, professionally, and socially damaging, regardless of the final outcome.

Here, a doctor with decades of experience had to seek relief from the High Court simply to have the opportunity to clear his name. The proceedings were based on acts performed during medical examination, in the presence of close relatives, with no hidden behavior or suggestive conduct. Yet, the mere allegation was enough to bring a criminal case under one of the strictest laws meant for grave abuse.

This situation highlights how the threshold for initiating such cases can sometimes become too low, allowing misunderstandings or discomfort to escalate into criminal charges. It creates a climate where men feel constantly vulnerable to misinterpretation, especially when working with minors or in intimate professional roles, even when acting responsibly and transparently.

Final Thoughts:

The judgment emphasizes the need to balance sensitivity toward genuine grievances with fairness toward the accused. Allegations involving minors must be taken seriously, but equally, the rights of those accused should not be cast aside without careful judicial evaluation. There must be room for context, intent, and circumstance. Ensuring that due process is not overwhelmed by perception is crucial—not only for justice but for preserving faith in professions that require both trust and care.

Read Complete Judgement Here