This Is What SC Held When It Quashed Charges Under POCSO Act Against Doctors In Kottiyoor Rape Case [Read Judgment]

‘Evidence should be such which should at least indicate grave suspicion. Mere likelihood of suspicion cannot be the reason to charge a person for an offence.’The Supreme Court has discharged the gynaecologist, paediatrician and the hospital administrative who were arrayed as accused in the Kottiyoor rape case.The main accused in the case is a church priest. Mere likelihood of suspicion cannot be the reason to charge a person for an offence.’ The Supreme Court has discharged the gynaecologist, paediatrician and the hospital administrative who were arrayed as accused in the Kottiyoor rape case. But, the prosecution argument was that, since when the victim was brought to the hospital, her age was recorded as 18 years and on that basis appellants could have gathered that at the time of conception she was less than 18 years and was, thus a minor and, therefore, the accused should have taken due care in finding as to how the victim became pregnant. Observing that such an argument is too ‘farfetched’, the bench, referring to Section 19, observed: “The expression used is “knowledge” which means that some information received by such a person gives him/her knowledge about the commission of the crime.