The Delhi High Court has held that a mother who dismisses her children's complaints of sexual abuse and continues to allow the accused to reside in the house "intentionally aids" the offence by illegal omission under Section 16(iii) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Section 16(iii) provides that a person abets an offence under the enactment who intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that offence.

Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha observed that where a child repeatedly informs her mother about sexual abuse, the mother's continued failure to protect the child, coupled with permitting the accused to remain in the house and thereby exposing the child to further abuse, goes beyond mere passive knowledge and falls within the ambit of "intentional aid by illegal omission" under Section 16(iii) of the POCSO Act.

According to the prosecution, the principal accused, a relative residing with the family, repeatedly subjected three minor girls to penetrative sexual assault over several years. The eldest victim stated that whenever she informed her mother about the abuse, her complaints were dismissed, and the accused continued to stay in the house.

The mother had been convicted under Section 6 read with Section 17 of the POCSO Act (abetment of penetrative sexual assault) and Section 376(2) read with Section 109 of IPC.

Rejecting the mother's contention that mere knowledge of the offence could not amount to abetment, the Court distinguished a Madras High Court decision where the mother had protested against the abuse.

In the present case, the Court noted, the mother neither took preventive steps nor attempted to protect her daughters despite repeated disclosures.

"Instead of protecting her minor daughters or taking any preventive or remedial steps, A2 dismissed the complaints, told PW1 not to make such allegations against A1 and continued permitting A1 to continue residing in the house, thus exposing the minor children to further abuse... The continued omission of A2 cannot be viewed as mere passive knowledge but would certainly come within the expression 'intentionally aids by illegal omission'..." it observed.

Appearance: Mr. Amitej Kumar Nagar, Advocate for Appellant; Mr. Utkarsh, APP for State with SI Kevendra Singh Mr. Manish Sangwan, Advocate (DHCLSC) for Victim

Case title: A @ Rinku v. State

Case no.: CRL.A. 1144/2025

Click here to read order