Delhi High Court: A petition was filed by the petitioner (mother) under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code assailing order dated 02-05-2024 (impugned order), passed by Additional Sessions Judge-01 (POCSO), North West/Rohini in case registered at Police Station [“PS”] Maurya Enclave wherein the charges were framed against the mother under Section 19(1) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences punishable under Section 21 POCSO. Anish Dayal, J., sets aside the charges framed against the mother and held that 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 mother who herself is a victim, but also to the prosecutrix who is solely dependent upon her mother for support.
The FIR was lodged following a complaint from the prosecutrix, who was a 16-year-old minor at the time of the alleged offences. She accused her father of various offenses including inappropriate touching, sexual assault, and showing her pornography. The FIR was registered under Sections 354, 354-A, 377, 323, and 376 of the Penal Code (IPC), as well as Sections 6 and 10 of the Protection of Children against Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). The complaint also implicated the prosecutrix’s mother for allegedly failing to report these incidents in a timely manner.
The issue under consideration is whether the mother face prosecution under Section 21 of the POCSO Act for the delayed reporting of the offence?
Counsel for the mother argued that the delay in reporting the abuse was not intentional but due to the fear of her abusive husband. She submitted that she was under psychological pressure and subjugation, which caused the delay. Relying on legal precedents, she contended that delays in reporting sexual offenses often stem from trauma, and such delays should not lead to punishment under Section 21 of POCSO.
Counsel for the respondents contended that the mother had a statutory duty to report the offense immediately once she became aware of it. They argued that the delay constitutes a breach of Section 21, which mandates punishment for failure to report.
The Court remarked that “the narrative provided, by both the mother and the child, in the complaint, and the Section 164 CrPC statements recorded before the Ld. ASJ, point out to sordid and depraved state of affairs in that house, where consistent abuse was perpetrated by the husband. In this context, it is not impossible to take into account, the possibility that the delay in reporting was only because both the mother and the child were living under a protracted, severe, and immense trauma, under the shroud of 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.” Thus, to not account for the fact that the mother herself who was the victim of sexual abuse, would not care for her only child and for some mala fide reason, not report the offences as mentioned to her by her child, would result in sheer injustice.
The Court acknowledged the trauma and fear faced by the mother and daughter due to the father’s dominance and abuse. It referred to previous judgments that recognized delays in reporting sexual abuse as common in cases of domestic violence due to the psychological trauma involved. The Court emphasized that while the POCSO Act mandates reporting, the circumstances surrounding the delay, particularly the domestic abuse suffered by the mother, needed to be considered.
The Court ruled that the delay in reporting did not amount to a failure to report under Section 21 of the POCSO Act. The mother’s delay was justified given the abusive environment created by the father, and she should not be prosecuted. The petition to quash her prosecution was allowed.
[Rupi Babbar v. State NCT of Delhi, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 6485, decided on 11-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Kapil Madan, Mr. Gurmukh Singh Arora & Mr. Vansh Bajaj, Advocates for petitioners
Mr. Pradeep Gahalot, APP for the State with Ms. Prachi Bahl, Mr. Varun Gupta, Ms. Ritu Sharma & Mr. Gaurav Kaushik, Advs with SI Meena Malik, PS Maurya Enclave