‘Palathayi Case a Prime Example of POCSO Act Misuse,’ Says Retired DYSP Raheem

KANNUR: Retired DYSP Raheem has controversially stated that the Palathayi case represents a significant instance of the misuse of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. He further suggested that the Act serves as a double-edged weapon, frequently exploited to ensnare political adversaries.

According to Raheem’s recent social media post, which gained traction after its initial sharing on November 16 – the day following the Palathayi case verdict – investigations by local police, the Crime Branch, and a Special Investigation Team (SIT) had previously concluded that POCSO charges would not stand in the case. He claimed that investigating officers had communicated this finding to him.

Raheem elaborated that the Crime Branch’s report to the court, following their inquiry into the Palathayi case, also indicated the non-applicability of the POCSO Act. He asserted that his discussions with the investigating officers confirmed this to be the correct assessment.

He expressed concern that the POCSO Act is an easily wielded tool against political opponents. The stark reality, he noted, is that a majority of POCSO cases result in convictions once they proceed to trial. Raheem pointed out that in such cases, the victim’s testimony of assault often leads to the conviction of the accused by most courts.

In his detailed Facebook post, Raheem described the POCSO Act, enacted in 2012, as a ‘double-edged weapon’ intended to curb sexual harassment and assault against children. While acknowledging its aim to foster a child-friendly police system and ensure justice, he questioned whether the law truly achieves its objectives, citing instances of its alleged misuse to target individuals.

He recounted an incident during his tenure as DC RB DYSP in Kasaragod, where a father allegedly coerced his daughter into filing a false POCSO case against rivals for revenge, leading to their imprisonment. He also highlighted situations in Muslim communities where opposing religious teachers reportedly use children to register POCSO cases as retaliatory measures against Madrasa Ustadhs.

Raheem observed that during POCSO investigations, police often hesitate to extend inquiries beyond the child victim’s statements.

He reiterated that the Palathayi case, extensively discussed both online and offline, appears to be the most recent example of the Act’s misuse, with the initial local police, Crime Branch, and SIT investigations reportedly finding POCSO charges unsustainable.

He concluded that the POCSO Act is an effective means to ‘trap opponents.’ He lamented the high conviction rate in POCSO cases, where a victim’s testimony often suffices for conviction, questioning the fate of potentially innocent individuals caught in the system.

Raheem also noted that the POCSO Act inadvertently serves to ‘save the face’ of the Kerala Police, as police efficacy is often measured by conviction rates. Citing the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, he stated that the POCSO conviction rate in 2019 was 73.89%. He emphasized the Indian legal principle that ‘even if a thousand criminals escape, not a single innocent person should be punished,’ and called for an assessment of how many innocent individuals have been convicted under this Act.

He further invoked a verse from the Holy Quran (5:8), stressing the importance of justice and truthfulness, even against oneself or relatives, and urged a review of the Act’s effectiveness in preventing child sexual abuse versus its documented misuse since 2012.

The article also references a recent verdict from the Thalassery Fast Track POCSO Court, which sentenced P. Padmarajan, a BJP leader and teacher, to life imprisonment until death for the rape of a child under 12 years. Judge A.T. Jalajarani’s ruling, under Indian Penal Code Section 376 AB, specified life imprisonment for the remainder of the convicted’s life, along with a fine of one lakh rupees and additional rigorous imprisonment under POCSO Act sections 5 (F) and (L), to be served concurrently with the life sentence.