HC upholds woman’s conviction for abetting rape of minor daughter

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a mother’s act of silencing her 11-year-old daughter and permitting an accused to repeatedly sexually assault her amounted to abetment under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma upheld the woman’s conviction under Sections 6 read with 17 and 21 of the POCSO Act, affirming the sentence of 25 years’ rigorous imprisonment awarded to her by the trial court.

The Bench observed that the woman’s conduct amounted to active assistance in the crime. “Her conduct in silencing the victim, directing her to submit, and permitting the co-accused to sleep with the child in the same bed and 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,” the Court said.

The Court further noted that the mother had deliberately chosen not to approach authorities or even confide in any person capable of preventing further harm. Such omission, it held, attracted punishment under Section 21 of the Act.

The case originated from a written complaint lodged by the father, who alleged that the child was subjected to repeated sexual assault by a man with the active involvement of her mother. An FIR was registered, and the matter proceeded to trial.

Justice Sharma observed that the prosecution evidence, despite minor discrepancies, remained firm on material aspects. The victim, in her statement under Section 164 of the CrPC and deposition before the trial court, consistently stated that she was subjected to repeated sexual abuse and that her mother was aware of it. Instead of intervening, the mother would scold and beat her whenever she resisted.

“This lends sufficient weight to the allegation that the appellant not only failed in her duty to protect her child but also actively facilitated and abetted the acts of co-accused,” the Court remarked.

Upholding the sentence, the Bench emphasised that no leniency was warranted given the grave nature of the offence. “The punishment awarded by the trial court is just, appropriate, and commensurate with the gravity of the offences,” the Court held.