Delhi High Court quashes POCSO case against mother who delayed reporting sexual assault on daughter

The Delhi High Court recently set aside an order of the trial court framing charges under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act) against a woman not disclosing/ filing complaint about the alleged sexual assault on her daughter by the girl’s father and her two cousins [Mother X of Victim A v State of NCT of Delhi & Anr]. .Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that in this case, the mother herself was subject to physical assault by her husband. Prosecuting her under these circumstances would amount to punishing her for the abuse she has endured, the Court said. “A child‘s sense of safety, trust, and emotional strength comes primarily from two sources – his or her father and mother... But when the mother herself is living under constant fear, abuse, and violence inflicted the same man, her capacity to protect, act, or even process the truth is also deeply impaired. It is vital for the Courts to understand the state of helplessness and paralysis that may result in such a traumatic environment,” the Court said. .The incident came to light when the woman complained about physical assault by her in-laws. On the same day, she dialled the Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) helpline and reported sexual assault on her 10-year-old daughter by her husband and two sons of her sister-in-law. The police booked the accused under the POCSO Act. However, even the complainant-woman was chargesheeted under Section 21 of the Act which deals with penalty for failing to report sexual offences against children. .After considering the case, Justice Sharma quashed the proceedings against the mother but ordered the trial court to continue the case against the other accused. “In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is inclined to allow the present petition since it finds no merit in the prosecution of the petitioner under Section 21 of POCSO Act. 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 Bench said. .Advocates Anuj Kapoor and Shivom Sethi appeared for the mother. State was represented by Additional Public Prosecutor Naresh Kumar Chahar. .[Read Judgment]