MOTHER X OF VICTIM A [Petitioner] Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR. [Respondents]
CRL.REV.P. 247/2024 & CRL.M.A. 5586/2024
(DR. SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.)
This case concerns the framing of charges against the petitioner, the mother of a minor victim of sexual abuse, under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), for allegedly failing to report the offence. The petitioner challenges the orders of the Sessions Court, which charged her despite her role as the initial informant. The case arises from incidents in early 2020, where the petitioner reported physical assault by her in-laws and subsequently disclosed the sexual abuse of her daughter by the child’s father and two cousin-brothers. The daughter’s medical examination and statements under Section 164 CrPC corroborated the allegations.
The Sessions Court found that although the petitioner knew about the assaults, she delayed reporting them and thus was liable under Section 21. However, the petitioner argues that she was herself a victim of domestic violence, faced social and familial pressure, and lacked awareness and support, which contributed to the delay. She had actively contacted authorities and brought her daughter to the police, leading to the investigation.
The High Court emphasized the need to consider the broader social and familial context. The evidence showed the petitioner was not complicit but acted within severe personal constraints. It was due to her intervention that the crimes came to light. Thus, while Section 19 imposes a duty to report, its application must be sensitive to the lived realities of victims who, like the petitioner, act under duress and hostile circumstances.
The Court examined whether the petitioner, a mother, should face charges under Section 21 of the POCSO Act for delayed reporting of sexual abuse committed against her daughter. It held that the petitioner’s delay must be understood in the socio-psychological context of prolonged domestic abuse, fear, and trauma. The minor initially faced disbelief from her mother, possibly due to the complex emotions shaped by years of dependency and hostility within the household. The petitioner’s Section 164 CrPC statement revealed her uncertainty and fear, compounded by ridicule from her in-laws. The Court emphasized that Section 21 penalizes failure to report, not mere delay, especially where trauma and fear are evident.
Referring to precedents like Rupi Babbar v. State, the Court recognized the immense psychological burden victims face, particularly when the abuser is a family member. The petitioner eventually took decisive steps to report the crime once she learned about available support services. The police initially treated her as a witness, later inexplicably making her an accused.
The Court stressed the need for sensitivity in applying mandatory reporting laws, acknowledging that trauma can delay action. It noted that prosecuting the mother would punish her for the very abuse she endured. Highlighting the critical role judges play in interpreting laws with compassion, the Court quashed the charge against the petitioner. It directed that the trial proceed against the other accused and allowed the mother to testify as a key witness in support of the child.
