New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has clarified that Section 21 of the POCSO Act is meant to prevent the suppression of sexual offences and ensure timely action in the best interest of the child, not to penalise individuals who, despite personal vulnerabilities, eventually report the crime.
On Monday, the court quashed proceedings against a woman who was being prosecuted under the POCSO Act for allegedly failing to immediately report the sexual abuse of her minor daughter. The bench emphasised that the law must acknowledge the hesitation to report such traumatic incidents “not as guilt, but as a human response to a deeply complex situation”.
Also Read | ‘We’re Being Criticised For Interference’: SC Responds To Charges Of Judicial Overreach
“If judges begin to treat delay and silence – born out of trauma or social oppression – as criminality, we risk turning the protective intent of law into an instrument of oppression itself. Justice, however, cannot be sacrificed at the altar of technicalities,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said, as quoted by LiveLaw.
Section 21 of the POCSO Act concerns failure to report or record a case of sexual offences against children. Under the law, anyone who fails to report an offence can be punished with imprisonment, a fine, or both.
The woman had challenged a sessions court order that framed charges under the provision against her. The woman’s minor daughter had been allegedly sexually assaulted by her father and the two sons of the mother’s sister-in-law. The mother also alleged that she was physically assaulted by her in-laws.
Setting aside the charges against the mother, the Delhi High Court observed that she was not complicit in shielding the accused but was herself suffering at the hands of the accused, the person whom she was expected to report.
Also Read | India’s Fast-Track Courts Struggle With 89% Pendency Rate In POCSO Cases: Report
An FIR was registered on the basis of the minor’s statement. Based on the report submitted by the investigating officer, the mother had made three PCR calls previously where she reported physical assault by her in-laws and didn’t mention the sexual assault of her daughter.
The court also noted that the medical examination of the minor survivor and the initiation of legal proceedings happened only because of the mother’s intervention.
