Mumbai court refuses to drop POCSO charge against society treasurer accused of sharing video of minor peeing

MUMBAI: A special court in Mumbai has rejected the discharge plea of a housing society office-bearer accused of sharing a video of a nine-year-old boy urinating on the building staircase, holding that the act prima facie attracted Section 23 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.Special Judge Sonali B Rathod said the law restrains any person from reporting or sharing any act of a child that may lower the child's reputation or infringe privacy. The court noted that the allegation against the accused was that he circulated on social media a video clip showing the boy in the private act of passing urine.The accused, the society's treasurer, had sought discharge from charges including defamation and disappearance of evidence. His defence argued that Section 23 of the Pocso Act would not apply, as the child was not a victim of a sexual offence and there was no intention to cause harm.

It was also argued that the accused did not know the child's identity and had been falsely implicated without proof of a specific criminal role.The court rejected these submissions, observing that Section 23 is broad in scope and is meant to protect every child, regardless of whether the child is a victim of any other offence. The judge said the allegation of publishing the video on a social platform was, at this stage, sufficient to bring the act within the ambit of the provision.

The prosecution's case relates to an incident in June 2022. According to records, the child was captured on CCTV urinating on the staircase while returning home with his mother. Though the parents apologised for the boy's conduct, the accused allegedly shared the footage on the society's WhatsApp group. The family claimed the clip was repeatedly circulated on social media, resulting in harassment, public shaming and damage to their reputation in the locality.In her order, the judge said the legal protection under the Pocso Act is intended to preserve the dignity and privacy of minors. She held that the question of criminal liability would be decided during trial, but at the present stage the allegations clearly disclosed an offence under Section 23. The court therefore found that the charges could not be termed groundless and refused to discharge the accused."Criminal liability of the accused could be decided only during the trial. But at this stage, the allegations are specifically covered under Section 23 of the Pocso Act," the judge said.