Simply Requesting Accused Not To Commit Rape Of Minor Instead Of Informing Police Amounts To Aiding Under POCSO: MP HC
The principle that simply requesting the accused not to commit rape of a minor instead of informing the police amounts to aiding under the POCSO Act, along with relevant case laws, including the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s perspective.
Legal Context: POCSO Act and Aiding Offence
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is a special law designed to protect children (below 18 years) from sexual abuse, exploitation, and offences like rape, sexual assault, etc.
Section 19 of the POCSO Act mandates that any person who has knowledge that an offence under this Act has been committed must report the same to the Special Juvenile Police Unit or the local police.
Duty to Report and Consequence of Non-Reporting
Failure to report an offence under POCSO amounts to an offence under Section 21 of the Act, punishable with imprisonment or fine.
The rationale: Prompt reporting helps protect the child and ensures swift justice.
Aiding Offence by Not Informing Police
Merely requesting or advising the accused not to commit the offence again, instead of informing the police, is viewed as aiding or abetting the offence.
Such conduct enables the accused to escape legal consequences and might lead to repeated offences.
Hence, the law treats non-reporting, especially when the person is aware of the offence or the threat of it, as an offence under the POCSO Act.
Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Explanation
The MP High Court has held that:
When a person knows or suspects the commission of rape or sexual offence on a minor, just advising the accused not to repeat the act instead of reporting to police can amount to abetment or aiding the commission of the offence.
The Court stressed the importance of statutory obligation under Section 19 POCSO to report the offence.
This omission or failure effectively helps the accused avoid immediate legal action, thus facilitating or aiding the crime.
Leading Case Laws
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Baliram (2021) MPHC
The Court held that failure to inform police by a person who had knowledge of the commission or imminent commission of a sexual offence on a minor can be held liable for aiding under POCSO.
State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384
Although not under POCSO, the Supreme Court explained aiding or abetting as “instigating, engaging in a conspiracy, or intentionally aiding in commission of offence.” This principle is applied in POCSO cases to persons who hide offences.
Lillu & Ors vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 1187
The Court emphasized that even omission to prevent or report a crime could attract criminal liability if there exists a legal duty.
Vinod Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan, (2012) 6 SCC 233
It was held that concealment of offence or failure to report amounts to abetment.
Summary
POCSO Act imposes a legal duty to report sexual offences against minors.
Merely requesting accused not to commit the offence without reporting is not enough.
Such inaction or non-reporting amounts to abetment or aiding the offence.
The MP High Court recognizes failure to report as aiding the accused under POCSO.
Reporting offences ensures child protection and helps in quick judicial intervention.
RELATED Blog
0 comments