Mitali Palnitkar
Published On: March 9, 2022 at 20:06 IST
The Karnataka High Court directed Principal Secretary of Health Department to issue a Circular and directions to all Medical Officers, prescribing their Responsibilities and Duties towards a Child Victim of Sexual Assault produced before them.
Justice HP Sandesh also directed to initiate appropriate Proceedings against a Doctor working in Taluk Government Hospital, Jagalur; who examined Victim in this Case and Issued a Sexual Assault certificate without giving an Opinion. He remarked that it is “Classic Case of Negligence” on the Doctor’s part.
The Doctor upon Physical Examination of the Victim stated that No Injuries were noted in External Genetalia. However, it was noted by the Court that No Finding was giving on whether she subjected to Sexual Act or not.
Further, the Doctor was silent when asked as to what was meant by Sexual Assault Certificate.
The Accused Thippeswamy alias Thipeshi had approached the Court seeking Bail. A Case was registered against him for Offences under Sections 363 and 376(2)(n) of Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act), and Sections 9 and 11 of Prohibition of the Child Marriage Act.
The Father of the Victim had lodged a Complaint that his 16-year-old Daughter was missing from June 14, 2021. Later, on enquiry, the Victim said that both of them fell in love.
The Accused came to her house and persuaded that he would marry her. He took her to Ilkal and kept her in a house and subjected her to Sexual Act.
She added that she was taken to the house of Manjula on June 26, 2021; where the Accused committed Forcible Sexual Intercourse from June 27 to July 18, 2021. Later, she was subjected to Medical Examination.
The Petitioner submitted that the Police investigated the matter and filed the Charge-Sheet. The incriminating Material was recovered from him and the Co-Accused were granted Bail. He claimed Bail on Ground of Parity.
The Prosecution opposed the Plea and submitted that the Victim was 16-year-old. She stated that they lived like husband and wife. The Medical Evidence shows that she was subjected to Sexual Act.
The Bench noted that Victim was taken to different places and was subjected to Sexual Act. The Petitioner cannot be granted Bail considering the Heinous Offence he Committed. It Rejected the Petition.