Delhi High Court: 'To Prosecute Her Would Be to Punish Her for the Abuse She Endured' : Charge Quashed Against Mother Under POCSO for Delayed Reporting of Child Sexual Abuse
Isabella Mariam
In a recent judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court, a Single Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma set aside charges framed against the mother of a minor victim of sexual assault, citing her status as a victim of domestic violence and the social context in which the delay in reporting occurred. The Court observed that Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act is not intended to criminalize delayed reporting arising from trauma and fear, particularly when the complainant is a vulnerable caregiver.
The petitioner had challenged the orders dated 23.11.2023 and 05.12.2023, issued by the Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi, which framed charges against her under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. Justice Sharma allowed the revision petition and quashed the charges, stating that prosecuting the mother under such circumstances would amount to punishing her for the abuse she endured.
The case stemmed from an FIR lodged on 21.01.2020 at Police Station Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, following a PCR call made by the petitioner on 20.01.2020. The call initially reported physical assault by her in-laws, but later the same day, the petitioner contacted the Delhi Commission for Women and disclosed that her 10-year-old daughter had been sexually assaulted by her husband and two juvenile relatives.
According to the victim's statement recorded under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, she was subjected to multiple instances of sexual abuse by her father, cousin (DS), and another minor cousin (CCL 'A'). The father allegedly showed her obscene videos and touched her inappropriately. DS reportedly committed repeated penetrative sexual assault, while CCL 'A' attempted to assault her.
The chargesheet filed on 10.09.2020 included the petitioner as an accused under Section 21 of the POCSO Act for allegedly failing to report the offence promptly. The Sessions Court found prima facie grounds to frame charges, citing the victim's statements and medical records.
The petitioner argued through counsel that she was an illiterate woman who had suffered domestic violence at the hands of her husband and in-laws. She had reported physical assault several times prior to disclosing the sexual offences. It was submitted that her delayed reporting stemmed from a lack of awareness, societal pressures, and emotional trauma. It was also argued that she eventually did report the offences and took her daughter to the police, thereby fulfilling her legal obligation under Section 19 of the POCSO Act.
The State, represented by the Additional Public Prosecutor, did not dispute the seriousness of the allegations but acknowledged that the petitioner had approached the police along with the minor victim.
The Court examined the applicability of Sections 19 and 21 of the POCSO Act, stating: "Section 21 of POCSO Act deals with 'non-reporting' and not 'delay in reporting' of offence." It observed that the law intends to ensure that sexual offences against children are reported, but must be applied with sensitivity.
Justice Sharma observed that the petitioner had been a victim of repeated domestic abuse and was raising her daughter in a hostile environment. "The petitioner was not complicit in shielding the accused, but was herself suffering at the hands of the very persons she was expected to report," the judgment recorded.
Quoting the victim’s statement, the Court noted: "The petitioner had not only confronted the cousin but also informed her mother-in-law... however, instead of support, the grandmother had discouraged the petitioner from escalating the matter." The Court held that this demonstrated the petitioner’s attempts to act, albeit constrained by familial and social resistance.
The judgment drew parallels with the decision in Rupi Babbar v. State (NCT of Delhi), where a similarly situated mother was discharged. It cited: "Section 21 of POCSO, ex facie is predicated upon 'failure to report' and not a 'delay of reporting'."
Justice Sharma further elaborated on the impact of trauma on the ability to report abuse: "Trauma is not linear – it affects people in complex ways, and that includes delay, silence, or hesitation in reporting." The Court recorded that treating such delayed reporting as criminality "would defeat the very spirit and intent of the POCSO Act."
Stating the socio-legal context, the Court stated: "Justice can never be complete if it is blind to the social realities in which people live... In such complex and sensitive scenarios, the black-and-white text of the law must be interpreted through the lens of human reality."
Allowing the petition, the Court quashed the charge framed under Section 21 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner. The Court stated:
"Framing charge for offence under Section 21 of POCSO Act against petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would cause grave prejudice to not just the petitioner who herself is a victim of domestic violence, but also to the minor victim who is dependent upon her mother for support."
The trial against the remaining accused will proceed in accordance with law. The Court clarified: "The learned Trial Court will be at liberty to consider the mother as a witness and informant in whom the child has confided in and narrated her trauma to, as per law."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Anuj Kapoor and Mr. Shivom Sethi
For the Respondent: Mr. Naresh Kumar Chahar, Additional Public Prosecutor
Case Title: Mother X of Victim A vs. State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2746
Case Number: CRL.REV. P. 247/2024
Bench: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
[Read/Download order]
