Her Conduct Exceeds Passive Acquiescence: Delhi High Court Uphold POCSO Conviction Of Mother Accused Of Abetting Assault On Minor Daughter
The High Court observed that the active conduct of a woman in facilitating the sexual assault of a minor, by silencing and compelling her submission, amounts to abetment under Section 16 of the POCSO Act.
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal challenging the conviction of a mother under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act), for abetting sexual assault on her minor daughter, holding that her role went much beyond passive non-interference and established intentional facilitation of the offence.
The Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment of the Trial Court, which had convicted the appellant under the POCSO Act. The appellant had been sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 25 years, along with six months’ simple imprisonment.
A Bench comprising Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, while adjudicating the matter, observed that, “…the appellant, who was expected to provide protection and care to the victim, not only failed in that duty but also played an active role in facilitating the commission of the offence. Her conduct in silencing the victim, directing her to submit, and permitting the co-accused Alok to sleep with the victim in the same bed and let him sexually abuse her, clearly demonstrates intentional assistance and aiding on her part. These acts go much beyond passive acquiescence and fall squarely within the ambit of “abetment” under Section 16 of the POCSO Act, punishable under Section 17.”
Advocate Himanshu Gupta represented the appellant, while Manoj Pant, APP, represented the respondents.
Background
The case arose from criminal proceedings initiated under the POCSO Act, under which the appellant was prosecuted for abetment of sexual assault. The Trial Court, after examining the evidence placed on record, had convicted the appellant under Sections 6, read with 17 and 21 of the Act.
Challenging the conviction, the appellant contended before the High Court that she had no active role in the offence, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove intentional participation, and that the Trial Court had erred in its appreciation of facts and law.
The respondents, however, maintained that the conduct of the appellant was not passive in nature but demonstrated clear facilitation of the crime, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 16 of the POCSO Act.
Court’s Observations
The Delhi High Court noted that the legislative framework under Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act was designed to punish not only the primary perpetrator of sexual offences against children but also those who aid, abet, or fail to report such crimes. The Bench observed that once the prosecution proved the victim’s minority, the repeated nature of the offence, and the appellant’s role in facilitating the acts, the statutory presumption of guilt under Section 29 applied.
While noting that the defence failed to rebut this presumption by any credible or unimpeachable evidence, the Court observed: “It is pertinent to note that once the prosecution has laid the foundation by proving the age of the victim, the commission of the sexual acts, and the active role of the appellant, the statutory presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act necessarily come into play, as already discussed above. The burden thus shifts onto the appellant to rebut these presumptions by bringing forth credible evidence or explanations; however, apart from bare denial, no material has been placed on record to displace or weaken the prosecution case, and the defence of the appellant has remained unsubstantiated.”
Further, emphasising that the appellant’s failure to report the crime attracted liability under Section 21 of the POCSO Act, the Bench remarked that, “the material on record also establishes that the appellant deliberately chose not to report the matter to the authorities or even to any other person in a position to prevent further harm on the victim child. This act of hers attracts punishment under Section 21 of POCSO Act.”
The Bench also rejected arguments about contradictions and delay in reporting, noting that “the testimony of a child witness cannot be expected to be accurate in such minute details, especially when she was recounting traumatic events from an impressionable age.”
On the contention that there was no medical evidence to support the case, the Bench held that “when cogent and consistent ocular testimony of the victim child is available, lack of medical evidence can be no ground to discredit her version.”
Conclusion
Finding no illegality in the Trial Court’s reasoning, the Delhi High Court upheld the conviction and sentence, and the appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Cause Title: K v. The State NCT of Delhi (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8447)
Appearances
Petitioner: Advocate Himanshu Gupta
Respondents: Manoj Pant, APP