Delhi HC sets aside charges framed against mother for failure to report POCSO offences committed on daughter

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court order framing criminal charges against a mother for failure to report incidents of sexual assault allegedly committed on the daughter by her father.

A single-judge bench of Justice Anish Dayal allowed the petitioner-mother’s plea challenging the May 2 order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (POCSO), North West/Rohini framing charges against her under Section 19(1) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, punishable under Section 21 POCSO.

Justice Dayal, in a detailed judgment, said: “A mother is sought to be prosecuted for delay in reporting of sexual offence on a child by her own husband, despite the fact that the mother herself was allegedly subject to severe abuse, sexual and otherwise, in her matrimonial home.”

“The delay in reporting was only because both the mother and the child were living under a protracted, severe, immense trauma, under the shroud of the threat of further physical and sexual abuse, that they could not muster the courage, space, or the spirit to go and report to the police,” he added.

After evaluation of the facts and circumstances, the Delhi HC ruled that there ought to be no reason to prosecute the mother, clarifying that its order should not prejudice the ongoing trial proceeding where the husband is the accused.

Setting aside the charges framed against the mother of the prosecutrix, it said: “Letting the charge under Section 21 POCSO against petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of this case, would cause grave prejudice to not just the petitioner who herself is a victim, but also to the prosecutrix who is solely dependent upon her mother/petitioner for support.”

In her complaint, the prosecutrix had alleged that she was sexually assaulted by her father on several occasions and was also beaten up by him. Further, the accused is also said to have brutally beaten up the petitioner (his wife) and threatened her in case she reported the alleged incidents.

Thereafter, an FIR was lodged under Sections 354, 354A, 377, 323, and 376 of the IPC (Indian Penal Code), 1860 and Sections 6 and 10 of the POCSO.

During the course of the investigation, the petitioner, in her Section 164 CrPC statement, alleged that her husband used to watch pornographic content on his phone and later, she came to know that he showed pornographic videos to their daughter and also molested her.

In her plea filed before the high court, the mother contended that not only the daughter, but she herself was a victim of severe abuse and due to severe threats to their life and safety, they did not have the courage to come to the police earlier.

–IANS