In recent times, there have been instances of misuse of the POCSO Act, which not only undermines the intention of the law but also threatens the integrity of the justice delivery system, the Court said.
The Kerala High Court recently raised concerns about the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), in a case where a girl admitted to filing a false complaint against her cousin-brothers out of anger.
Justice CS Dias pointed out that this situation raises an important question: who should be responsible for these false complaints, especially since the POCSO Act protects minors from punishment for giving false information?
“What wrong have the petitioners (the accused brothers) done, and who is to compensate them for their wrongful confinement, mental agony, trauma and pain they have endured?” the Court remarked.
The Court recognized the POCSO Act as a groundbreaking law designed to ensure the safety and protection of children.
“However, in recent times, there have been instances of misuse of the legislation, as evidenced in the cases on hand. Such misuse not only undermines the intention of the legislation but also poses a serious threat to the integrity of the justice delivery system,” the Court added.
The Court left it to the State to devise measures to prevent false POCSO cases.
This Court has consistently cautioned against the potential misuse of the otherwise benevolent provisions of the POCSO Act … I leave it to the best wisdom of the State to determine and implement appropriate safeguards, checks, I leave it to the best wisdom of the State to determine and implement appropriate safeguards, checks, drawing upon the principles laid down in the landmark decision in Arnesh Kumar (supra),” the Court said.
The Court was considering bail applications from two brothers who had been in jail for two months after their 17-year-old cousin accused them of molestation.
In a complaint filed earlier this year, the complainant (then a minor) claimed that in August 2017, while she was in the sixth grade, one of her cousins committed penetrative sexual assault on her. She also claimed that she was molested by both her cousins in February and March 2023.
The accused cousins said the allegations against them were false.
Later, the complainant, now an adult, filed an affidavit admitting that she had made the accusations out of anger. She said her cousins had disapproved of her relationship with a classmate, which led to a conflict.
The Court was told that the accused brothers had informed the complainant’s mother about her relationship, which caused problems for her schooling. In response and out of anger, she falsely accused her cousins of molestation.
The girl said she didn’t realize her cousins could be arrested or that the situation would become so serious. She admitted her cousins were innocent and that her earlier accusations were false.
The complainant’s parents told the Court they didn’t know about the false claims until the police showed up at their home.
The Court observed that this case shows how false accusations can seriously affect innocent people’s lives.
“These applications highlight the plight of the so-called predators in the present crimes, who have become the actual victims of an orchestrated act of retribution by the so-called victim, and it demonstrates the perilous consequences that can arise due to the false accusations made by a victim,” the Court said.
The Court advised the authorities to exercise caution before making arrests under the POCSO Act, particularly in cases involving allegations against family members.
“The present cases serve as a reminder to all stakeholders involved in the judicial process, to exercise due caution, prudence and diligence prior to arresting an accused, especially, blood relatives and family members of a minor victim, who in a moment of an emotional turmoil, may make unfounded allegations against her own family members without fully realising the implications, gravity and seriousness of the action. In such sensitive cases, it is imperative that all stakeholders, including the Courts and the Police, approach the matter with sensitivity, care and caution before resorting to extreme steps in the matter,” the Court said, while allowing the bail applications before it.
The bail applicants were represented by advocates PM Arun Das, K Arun, CA Chacko, CM Charisma, Babu VP, and Vishnu S Mullappally.
Senior Public Prosecutor CS Hrithwik appeared for the State.
Advocates Bibin Varghese and Megha K Xavier represented other respondents.