Legal Issue
The Delhi High Court examined whether a mother can be held criminally liable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for failing to protect her children after they repeatedly disclosed incidents of sexual abuse.
Background
The case involved allegations that a male relative, who was living with the family, repeatedly sexually assaulted three minor girls over several years. According to the prosecution, the eldest victim informed her mother about the abuse on multiple occasions. However, instead of taking action, the mother allegedly dismissed the complaints and continued to allow the accused to stay in the same house, exposing the children to further abuse.
The trial court convicted the mother under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act for abetment of penetrative sexual assault and under Section 376(2) read with Section 109 of the Indian Penal Code. She challenged the conviction before the Delhi High Court, arguing that mere knowledge of the offence could not amount to abetment.
Court’s Decision
Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha upheld the conviction, holding that the mother’s conduct went beyond passive knowledge. The Court observed that despite repeated disclosures by her children, she neither protected them nor took any preventive or remedial steps. Instead, she dismissed their complaints and continued to permit the accused to reside in the house.
The Court held that such conduct amounted to “intentional aid by illegal omission” under Section 16(iii) of the POCSO Act, which treats a person as having abetted an offence if they intentionally assist its commission through an act or omission.
The Court distinguished an earlier Madras High Court decision where the mother had attempted to intervene and oppose the abuse, noting that the facts in the present case demonstrated a complete failure to protect the victims.
Legal Significance
The judgment reinforces that parents and guardians have a legal duty to protect children from sexual abuse. A deliberate failure to act, particularly after receiving repeated complaints from a child, can amount to criminal abetment under the POCSO Act. The ruling highlights that intentional inaction which enables continued abuse may attract criminal liability.
Case Title: Rinku v. State
