Delhi High Court: In a revision petition filed by the petitioner (‘victim’s mother’), assailing the orders dated 23-11-2023 and 5-12-2023, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Special Court (POCSO), South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi (‘Sessions Court’), vide which charges were framed against her under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’), Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., stated that framing charge for offence under Section 21 of POCSO Act against victim’s mother, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would cause grave prejudice to not just the victim’s mother who herself was a victim of domestic violence, but also to the minor victim who was dependent upon her mother for support. Accordingly, the Court set aside the charge framed against the victim’s mother for offence under Section 21 of POCSO Act, by virtue of impugned orders.
Background
In the present case, a PCR call was received on 20-1-2020, wherein the victim’s mother had reported that she had been physically assaulted by her in-laws. Later, on the same day, she dialled the helpline number of Delhi Commission for Women, and reported sexual assault of her 10-year-old minor daughter by her husband and the two sons of her sister-in-law. Additionally, she also reported that she was physically assaulted by her in-laws.
Thereafter, the victim’s mother, along with the victim i.e. her daughter, went to the police station, wherein the victim disclosed that about five-six months ago, the accused, i.e. her father, had touched her private parts inappropriately. She further disclosed that when she was alone at her home about four-five months ago, her father had shown her obscene videos on his mobile phone. She further stated that subsequent to the aforesaid incident, her cousin had also subjected her to sexual assault, and two-three months thereafter, the younger brother of the cousin, aged 12 years, on the pretext of playing with her, had also sexually assaulted her.
Based on the victim’s statement, the FIR was registered for offence under Sections 354/376-DB of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), and Sections 6, 10 and 12 of the POCSO Act. Eventually, the Sessions Court, vide impugned order on charge, found the victim’s mother liable to face trial for offence under Section 21 of POCSO Act.
The primary issue that arose for consideration was whether the charge under Section 21 of the POCSO Act could be sustained against the victim’s mother and the initial informant of the offence.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court observed that the FIR and the victim’s statement under Section 164 of CrPC revealed a deeply disturbing environment in the domestic household, marked not only by repeated incidents of sexual abuse of the minor child by close family members, but also by the physical victimisation of the victim’s mother.
Therefore, the Court stated that it was evident that the victim’s mother was not complicit in shielding the accused, but was herself suffering at the hands of the very persons she was expected to report. Despite being a victim of physical abuse and emotional isolation, she eventually became the first person who took the crucial step and accompanied her daughter to the police station to lodge the FIR. The medical examination of the minor victim and the initiation of legal proceedings only occurred due to the victim’s mother’s intervention.
The Court stated that the prosecution’s allegation that the minor victim had failed to report the offence in a timely manner, and was thus liable to face charge under Section 21 of POCSO Act, must be examined in this socio-psychological and factual context. The statements of the minor victim revealed that while her mother did not believe her immediately when she first made the disclosure, this scepticism might have stemmed from the child’s additional statement that her father was of unsound mind. The Court stated that the victim’s mother initial doubt in believing such allegations might not reflect wilful neglect on her part, but rather a complex psychological response shaped by years of abuse, dependency, and survival within a hostile matrimonial environment.
The Court stated that in the present case, the delay, if any, was explained by the abuse the victim’s mother herself endured in her matrimonial home, the absence of social and familial support, and the initial disbelief in such allegations that understandably would have clouded her perception. However, it could not be ignored that eventually, it was the victim’s mother only who ensured that the offence committed against her daughter came to light and legal action was initiated.
Further, the Court stated that a child’s sense of safety, trust, and emotional strength comes primarily from two sources, his or her father and mother. When one of those sources, such as a father in this case, becomes the abuser, the child’s entire foundation of trust was shaken. In this case, the child did not have the protection of her father, and the father, who should have been a refuge, turned into a threat. That leaves only one person to whom the child could turn to, was her mother.
However, the Court stated that when the mother herself was living under constant fear, abuse, and violence inflicted by the same man, her capacity to protect, act, or even process the truth is also deeply impaired. It was vital for the Courts to understand the state of helplessness and paralysis that might result in such a traumatic environment. The Court stated that to expect such a person to immediately report the incident without delay or confusion was to deny her empathy and sensitive humane approach crucial in such cases. The law must recognise that trauma was not linear, it affects people in complex ways, and that includes delay, silence, or hesitation in reporting.
The Court stated that in the present case, where a child was sexually abused by her father, the mother of the child was not merely a bystander, she was also a victim in her own way. The pain of the child travels to the mother. In such complex and sensitive scenarios, the black-and-white text of the law must be interpreted through the lens of human reality, otherwise we risk losing the very thread by which justice was served to the people it was meant to protect.
Thus, the Court stated that framing charge for offence under Section 21 of POCSO Act against victim’s mother, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would cause grave prejudice to not just the victim’s mother who herself was a victim of domestic violence, but also to the minor victim who was dependent upon her mother for support. Accordingly, the Court set aside the charge framed against the victim’s mother for offence under Section 21 of POCSO Act, by virtue of impugned orders.
[Mother X v. State (NCT of Delhi), CRL.REV.P. 247 of 2024, decided on 21-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Anuj Kapoor and Shivom Sethi, Advocates
For the Respondents: Naresh Kumar Chahar, APP for the State.
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
