Facts of the Case

The case concerns a mother who was charged under Section 21 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for allegedly failing to report the sexual assault of her minor daughter. The accused in the sexual assault were the child’s father and two sons of the mother’s sister-in-law. The mother had earlier made three PCR calls to report physical abuse by her in-laws but did not mention the sexual assault at that time. Later, based on the minor’s statement, an FIR was registered, and a medical examination was conducted, all set into motion by the mother’s eventual reporting. Despite this, the trial court framed charges against her under Section 21 of the POCSO Act for delayed reporting.

Contention of the Petitioner

The petitioner, the mother of the minor victim, argued that she had not intentionally concealed the offence and was herself a victim of domestic violence, suffering at the hands of the same household where the child was assaulted. She contended that her delayed reporting stemmed from her vulnerable situation and mental trauma, not from any intent to suppress the offence. She emphasized that she was the one who eventually brought the matter to light and initiated the legal process. Thus, charging her under Section 21 of the POCSO Act was unjustified and deeply prejudicial.

Contention of the Respondent

The respondent (State/prosecution) relied on the delay in reporting and on the petitioner’s prior PCR calls, which mentioned only physical violence but made no reference to the sexual abuse. Based on this, the prosecution maintained that the petitioner had failed in her legal obligation under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, which mandates the reporting of child sexual abuse by anyone who becomes aware of such incidents. This, according to them, justified the framing of charges against her.

Court’s Observations

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the case, made several poignant observations about the nature of trauma and the complex dynamics of abuse within families. The Court held that Section 21 of the POCSO Act is aimed at preventing the non-reporting of sexual offences, and not to penalize delayed reporting when the delay is attributable to personal vulnerabilities, trauma, or fear. The Court emphasized that treating such delay as criminality would transform a protective law into an oppressive tool.

The judgment acknowledged that trauma is not linear and affects individuals in complex ways. Especially in familial sexual abuse cases, the Court noted, a mother may undergo secondary trauma, emotional conflict, and fear of social backlash, all of which can affect her ability to act immediately. The mother in this case was also suffering abuse, making her position particularly vulnerable. The Court stressed the importance of considering the socio-cultural realities and emotional complexities in criminal adjudication, especially where family and child protection are concerned.

The Court remarked, “The law must recognise this hesitation not as guilt, but as a human response to a deeply complex situation.” It held that courage to report abuse may not arise immediately but must be acknowledged when it ultimately does.

Court’s Order

The Delhi High Court allowed the petitioner’s revision petition and set aside the charges framed under Section 21 of the POCSO Act against her. It held that prosecuting her under this section would cause grave injustice, not only to her as a domestic violence victim but also to the minor child who relied on her for emotional and physical support. The Court directed that the trial should proceed against the other accused in accordance with law and left it open for the trial court to consider the mother as a witness and informant in whom the child had confided.

The petition was accordingly disposed of, along with any pending applications.

Credits: Adv. Deeksha Rai