78-year-old paediatrician sentenced to 47 years in POCSO case in Keralam

Dr. P. Krishnan, a 78-year-old paediatrician and former superintendent of Kasaragod District Hospital, was convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old patient. The incident occurred at his clinic during the COVID-19 period. The court found that he took the girl into a separate room while supposedly examining her wound.

Judge P.M. Suresh imposed several rigorous-imprisonment terms. These added up to 47 years under the Indian Penal Code and the POCSO Act. However, the sentences run concurrently, meaning they are served during the same period rather than one after another. His effective prison term is therefore 20 years.

The court also imposed a total fine of ₹1.25 lakh. If he does not pay it, he must undergo another 18 months of imprisonment. After sentencing, he was taken into custody and shifted to prison. The punishment reflects the seriousness of an offence against a child and the court's findings.

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, or POCSO, is India’s special law for sexual offences against children. It provides specific offences and punishments for sexual assault, aggravated forms of assault, and rape involving minors. Its purpose is to give children dedicated legal protection and procedures suited to their vulnerability.

The Act applies here because the girl was 15 years old when the incident occurred. The prosecution said Dr. Krishnan took her into a separate room during a medical visit and sexually assaulted her. The court sentenced him under Sections 6(1) and 5(e), and also under Sections 10 and 9(e) of POCSO.

The POCSO convictions formed part of the total 47 years announced by the court. Those terms run concurrently with the IPC sentence, producing an effective 20-year prison term. The case therefore shows how general criminal law and child-specific protection law can be used together.

A cumulative sentence adds together the punishments imposed under different legal provisions. In this case, the court awarded 20 years under IPC Section 376(3), another 20 years under Sections 6(1) and 5(e) of POCSO, and seven years under Sections 10 and 9(e). Together, those terms total 47 years.

Concurrent sentences work differently. They are served at the same time, rather than consecutively. Because the longest individual term was 20 years, that became the effective prison term. The other sentences still record the seriousness and legal basis of the conviction, but they do not extend the prison stay beyond the concurrent period.

Thus, there is no contradiction between the announced 47 years and the required 20 years. The court formally imposed all the sentences, while specifying that they would overlap. The prosecution said Dr. Krishnan must therefore serve 20 years in prison.

The principal IPC offence was rape of a girl below 16 years under Section 376(3). The court awarded 20 years of rigorous imprisonment for that conviction. This provision addressed the prosecution’s claim that the 15-year-old girl was raped during the clinic visit.

The court also used POCSO Sections 6(1) and 5(e), awarding another 20 years. In addition, it imposed seven years under Sections 10 and 9(e) of the Act. These child-protection provisions formed separate legal bases for the conviction and sentence.

The punishments under the different provisions added up to 47 years. However, all the sentences were concurrent, so the effective term remained 20 years. The article identifies the alleged act, the victim’s age, and the relevant sections, but does not explain the detailed statutory wording of each POCSO section.

Rigorous imprisonment means the convicted person must serve a custodial sentence under the prison system. After Judge P.M. Suresh pronounced the sentence, Dr. Krishnan was taken into custody and shifted to prison. The article does not describe his daily prison conditions or any specific work requirement.

The court imposed several prison terms for the IPC and POCSO convictions. Although their total was 47 years, they run concurrently, so he must effectively serve 20 years. This makes the sentence immediately consequential: he moved from being on anticipatory bail during the investigation to custody after conviction and sentencing.

The fine creates a separate financial consequence. The court ordered him to pay ₹1.25 lakh. If he defaults, he must undergo an additional 18 months of imprisonment. The article does not state whether the fine was paid, so only the default consequence can be reported.

Children are given special protection because they are still developing and may be vulnerable to pressure, authority, manipulation, or dependence on adults. A child may appear to agree, but the law recognises that this does not make sexual conduct legally acceptable. POCSO therefore protects every person below 18 from sexual offences.

The case illustrates why that protection matters. The girl was 15 and had gone to a doctor for treatment of a leg wound. The prosecution said he used the medical examination as a pretext to take her into a separate room and assault her. His professional authority and the treatment setting made the protection especially important.

The court applied POCSO provisions alongside IPC Section 376(3). The article does not discuss consent arguments or the girl’s exact legal testimony. It establishes her age and the conviction, which were enough for the court to impose the recorded sentences.

Police typically receive the complaint, register the case, investigate, collect evidence, and file a chargesheet. Prosecutors then present that evidence and argue why the accused should be convicted. Courts assess the evidence, decide guilt, apply the relevant laws, and impose sentence. Each role supports a fair process.

In this case, the girl told her parents the next day. Her family complained, and Bekal police registered the case. Inspector P. Narayanan initially led the investigation, while Inspector Nizam later completed it and filed the chargesheet. The court then convicted Dr. Krishnan and imposed the sentences.

Medical professionals have a separate duty to treat children safely and professionally, and any examination must not become a means of abuse. Here, the accused was the doctor alleged to have assaulted the patient. The article does not describe independent medical evidence, so no further role can be assigned from the reported facts.