The Kerala High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings initiated under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO Act) against a woman for failing to report the sexual assault of two minors in the premises of the cottage she had rented out [Sheela v State of Kerala & anr]

The woman in question owned a homestay called Budgies Cottage where the two minors were allegedly subjected to sexual assault.

Justice A Badharudeen observed that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the woman was in charge of the cottage.

The judge also opined that the prosecution had submitted enough material to support the allegation that the the woman failed to report crime which prima facie makes her liable to be prosecuted under Section 21 of the POCSO Act.

"Thus, going by the prosecution allegations, the involvement of the 2nd accused in the matter of providing room to the 1st accused to subject the respective victims to aggravated forms of sexual assault, and failure to inform this to the police can be gathered prima facie," the judge added.

The woman, who is the petitioner in this case, ran a home stay along with her husband.

The prosecution allegation was that the woman had allowed her friend to use rooms in the cottage where he assaulted two 15-year-old girls on separate occasions.

The police claimed that the petitioner did not report these incidents, despite her knowledge of the assaults, and instead facilitated the man's acts by providing him rooms at the cottage.

The petitioner thus approached the Court seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against her in the two separate crimes both of which alleged that she had violated of the mandate under POCSO Act to report instances of sexual assault assault of minors.

The petitioner submitted that the licence of the cottage was in her husband's name and that there was no direct evidence linking her to the crimes.

However, the prosecution argued that witness testimonies and documents clearly indicated the petitioner's involvement in managing the cottage.

The Court noted that the licence was registered in her husband's name but had lapsed by the time the crimes occurred. It also noted that one of the prosecution witnesses, who was a former employee, had stated that the woman ran the homestay and that the man who committed the assaults was a friend of hers.

The Court concluded that despite the petitioner not being directly involved in the sexual assaults, her failure to report the crimes at her cottage constituted a serious offence under the Act.

Therefore, the prosecution allegation as to commission of the offence punishable under Section 19(1) r/w 21 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner/2nd accused is, prima facie, made out and in such a case quashment cannot be considered since, prima facie, materials are in abundance to go for trial.", the Court stated

It found prima facie evidence to establish her involvement and ruled that the case must proceed to trial, therefore, dismissing the petition.

The petitioner was represented by advocate Peeyus A Kottam.

Public Prosecutor MP Prasanth appeared for the state.

[Read Order]