DATE: 18/09/2025
COURT: High Court of Delhi
BENCH: Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
FACTS:
In August 2017, the complainant, his wife
'K' (the appellant), and their minor daughter 'S' (the victim) moved to Delhi
seeking employment. They became acquainted with Alok Yadav, who arranged jobs
for the complainant and his wife, and the family began residing in a house at
Jasola, Sarita Vihar. In October 2018, the victim expressed her desire to
return to her native village and was sent there. However, the appellant and
Alok insisted on bringing her back to Delhi. When the complainant asked the
victim’s grandmother to send her back, the victim refused and disclosed to her
grandmother that Alok Yadav, with the active assistance of her mother 'K', had
sexually assaulted her. The victim revealed that when her father was away on
night duty, Alok and her mother would engage in indecent acts in her presence,
and Alok would also assault her. The appellant allegedly beat the victim to
force compliance and threatened her when she resisted or threatened to tell her
father.
Following the victim’s disclosures, an FIR
was registered on 18.01.2020 based on the complainant’s written complaint. The
investigation involved a medical examination of the victim at AIIMS Hospital,
Delhi, and recording her statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The accused
were arrested, and a chargesheet was filed, leading to charges being framed.
The prosecution examined 10 witnesses during the trial, while the accused did
not present any defense evidence. The Trial Court convicted Alok Yadav under Section
6 of the POCSO Act and Section 376AB of the IPC, and the appellant 'K' was
convicted under Section 6 read with Section 17 and Section 21 of the POCSO Act
on 15.02.2025. The appellant was sentenced to 25 years of rigorous imprisonment
and 6 months of simple imprisonment for the respective offenses on 27.02.2025,
prompting her to file the present appeal.
ISSUES:
The primary issues before the Court were
whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the minor
victim was subjected to repeated sexual assault by co-accused Alok Yadav with
the active abetment of her mother (the appellant), and whether the delay in
disclosure by the victim and in registration of the FIR weakened the
credibility of the prosecution’s case. The Court also considered whether the
absence of medical evidence and minor discrepancies in the victim’s testimony
undermined the case against the appellant.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Court upheld the conviction of the
appellant under Sections 6 read with 17 and Section 21 of the POCSO Act,
affirming the Trial Court’s finding that she abetted the commission of sexual
assault on her minor daughter and failed to report the offence. The sentence of
25 years’ rigorous imprisonment along with six months’ simple imprisonment was
held to be appropriate and proportionate, and the appeal was dismissed.
In arriving at this conclusion, the Court
emphasized that the testimony of the victim remained clear, categorical, and
consistent in both her Section 164 Cr.P.C. statement and her deposition before
the Trial Court. Despite minor contradictions, her account of repeated sexual
abuse by Alok, actively facilitated by her mother, was corroborated by the
statements of her grandparents and father. The Court further highlighted that
the appellant’s conduct went beyond mere passivity; by silencing the victim, coercing
her submission, and deliberately failing to report the abuse, she intentionally
abetted the crime. These circumstances invoked the statutory presumptions under
Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, which the defence failed to rebut with any
credible evidence.
The Court also rejected the defence
arguments regarding delay in disclosure, delay in FIR registration, minor
discrepancies in the victim’s statement, and absence of medical evidence. It
reasoned that the victim, being only about 11 years old, was in an environment
where her own mother betrayed her trust, making it unrealistic to expect
immediate disclosure. The delay was further explained by the grandmother’s
illness and the victim’s eventual disclosure only when she felt safe. The Court
noted that delay in such cases must be evaluated in light of the trauma, family
dynamics, and fear endured by victims of child sexual abuse, citing precedents
emphasizing sensitivity in such assessments. Similarly, the absence of medical
evidence was attributed to the late reporting of the abuse and did not
undermine the consistent and credible ocular testimony of the child. Thus, the
prosecution’s case was found fully proved, justifying both the conviction and
the severity of the sentence.
ANALYSIS:
The case highlights the grave betrayal of
trust when a parent, instead of protecting a child, actively participates in or
facilitates her exploitation. The Court’s decision underscores that abetment
under the POCSO Act is not confined to direct physical involvement but also
extends to conduct that enables or supports the commission of sexual offences.
The appellant’s actions—compelling the victim to submit, threatening her into
silence, and choosing not to report the abuse—were found to be active forms of
participation that met the threshold of “abetment.” By applying the statutory
presumptions under Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act, the Court shifted the
burden on the appellant to disprove her role, which she failed to do. This
reinforced the principle that in cases of child sexual abuse, the law must be
interpreted in a manner that prioritizes the child’s safety, credibility, and
protection over procedural technicalities.
The Court’s reasoning also demonstrates a
nuanced understanding of the psychological and social realities surrounding
child sexual abuse. It rightly observed that delays in disclosure or FIR
registration cannot be viewed with the same suspicion as in ordinary criminal
cases, particularly when the abuse occurs within the confines of the home and
involves close family members. By recognizing the trauma, fear, and
helplessness that silence victims, the Court reinforced the importance of
sensitivity in evaluating evidence in such cases. Furthermore, its rejection of
the defence’s reliance on minor discrepancies and absence of medical evidence
affirms that the consistent, categorical testimony of a child victim can form
the sole basis of conviction if it inspires confidence. The judgment thus sets
a strong precedent for holding facilitators of abuse accountable and reflects
the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the protective framework of the POCSO
Act.
info@adhwaitha.com