3-Yr-Old Child Tutored To Depose Against Her Own Father: Kerala HC Quashes POCSO Case Filed By Mother
The Kerala High Court quashed POCSO case against a father filed by the mother of a 3-year-old child seeking her custody, while observing that the said child had been tutored to depose against her father.
The Court stated that matrimonial disputes leading to such false allegations of child sexual exploitation by a father can have severe and far-reaching consequences for all parties involved. The Bench further stated that it was the POCSO Court's duty to see that there was no false allegation against parents, especially when there was a custody dispute.
A Single Bench of Justice P.V. Kunhikrishnan observed, “Even the child aged 3 years who is tutored to depose against her own father deposed before the Magistrate that she likes her father more than her mother. This is a fit case in which the prosecution against the petitioner who is the father of the victim is to be quashed in the light of the above discussions.”
Advocate P. Vinodkumar appeared for the petitioner, while Advocate Sindhu represented the respondents.
The case was registered under Sections 3, 4, and 5(l) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), and Section 23 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 1986 (JJ Act), involving “serious allegations of sexual harassment” by the mother of the minor daughter against the child’s father.
The Court noted the trend of matrimonial disputes leading to such false allegations. In this case, the mother accused the father of sexually abusing their 3-year-old daughter, alleging various such instances. The Court observed that the accusations were "frivolous" and appeared to be an attempt by the mother to secure custody of the child.
“The facts in this Criminal Miscellaneous case is an example of the fight of a couple which leads to an awkward situation. This is an unfortunate case in which a small girl aged 3 years is used by her own mother as a weapon to fight against her husband,” the Court remarked.
The Bench pointed out that if a mother understood her child was being abused, she would not hesitate for a moment to submit a complaint before the police. However, the complaint was filed only after the father reported the mother and child's disappearance. The Court also considered the child's inconsistent statements and the lack of medical evidence supporting the claims of abuse.
Consequently, the Court held, “The above discussion would lead to the definite conclusion that the prosecution against the petitioner in this case, who is the father of the minor victim is a frivolous, false complaint from the 2nd respondent to get the custody of the child from the petitioner. I am more disturbed because the child gave a Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement, which is extracted in the earlier paragraph of this judgment, in which she stated that she likes her father and mother and she likes her father more.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: X v. State Of Kerala & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024/KER/56778)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate P. Vinodkumar
Respondents: PP Sangeetharaj. N.R; Advocate Sindhu