Back
Delhi High Court Rules Mother Abetted POCSO Crime Through By
The has delivered a landmark ruling asserting that a parent’s failure to protect their child from sexual abuse can be categorized as "" under the law. The judgment by Hon'ble Ms. Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha upholds the conviction of a mother who knowingly allowed an accused relative to reside in their home despite repeated reports of sexual assault against her minor daughters.
A Pattern of Repeated Abuse
The prosecution’s case centered on a relative, Akeel Azhar, who resided with the family and repeatedly subjected three minor girls to penetrative sexual assault over three years. The eldest victim testified that she had disclosed the harrowing incidents to her mother on multiple occasions. Instead of intervening or reporting the crime, the mother reportedly dismissed the accounts as lies and continued to live with the accused, effectively creating an environment of ongoing abuse.
The Legal Battle Over
The defense argued that the mother’s inaction did not constitute as defined under the or the . They contended that mere knowledge of an offence, without active instigation, is insufficient to hold a third party liable for . To support this, they relied on previous judicial precedents where mothers were cleared of charges when they had actively protested the abuse.
However, the Court distinguished this case, noting that the mother here made no effort to safeguard her children. By ignoring the pleas of the victims and allowing the perpetrator to remain in a position of domestic proximity, her refusal to act transitioned from to .
Court’s Legal Analysis
The Court observed that the definition of
under
includes
"
by
."
When a guardian possesses the legal and moral duty to protect their child but deliberately chooses to ignore repeated disclosures of sexual violence, that omission becomes an instrument of aid for the perpetrator.
The Court referenced the following principles in its reasoning:
*
"The continued omission of A2 cannot be viewed as mere
but would certainly come within the expression 'intentionally aids by
'..."
*
"Instead of protecting her minor daughters or taking any preventive or remedial steps, A2 dismissed the complaints... and continued permitting A1 to continue residing in the house..."
*
"The
report's non-detection of male DNA cannot be read to override the clear, consistent
of child victims."
Final Verdict and Implications
Dismissing the appeals, the High Court confirmed the convictions of both the principal accused and the mother. The mother was sentenced for her role in abetting the crimes under the POCSO Act and the . This judgment serves as a critical precedent in Indian , emphasizing that parents hold an to act when their children report abuse. Any failure to move beyond to active protection of a child may now squarely face prosecution for by .
