Delhi HC upholds mother’s conviction for abetting rape of 11-year-old

Court says woman not only failed to protect daughter but actively enabled repeated assaults, dismissing her plea against 25-year sentence.

The Delhi High Court has upheld a trial court’s conviction of a woman for abetting the repeated rape of her 11-year-old daughter, stating that the mother “actively facilitated” the sexual assaults instead of protecting her child.

Delhi High Court highlights “stark” breach of parental duty, citing oral and documentary evidence that proved repeated sexual assaults. (HT Photo)

A bench of justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, in a September 18 verdict, dismissed the woman’s appeal against her 25-year prison sentence, emphasising the “stark” nature of the case where a parent became “instrumental in enabling” the abuse.

“The facts of the present case are stark, as the mother, who is expected to safeguard her child, instead became instrumental in enabling and facilitating the repeated commission of the heinous offence of penetrative sexual assault upon her own daughter,” the court said in its verdict released on Friday.

The woman’s conviction originated from a first information report (FIR) filed by her husband in January 2020, alleging that his wife and another man engaged in sexual activity while he worked night shifts, deliberately making their daughter sleep beside them. The case was filed under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), including rape and section 6 (aggravated penetrative sexual assault) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (Pocso) Act

The father further claimed that whenever the child resisted the assaults, her mother would assault her and force her to submit, actively assisting the co-accused in repeatedly assaulting the minor.

The trial court, in February this year, had convicted the man of rape and aggravated penetrative sexual assault, and the woman of abetting the sexual assault and failure to report the commission of an offence against a minor. The woman was handed a 25-year jail term.

The trial court had noted that her actions caused “deep alarm in society and irreparable trauma to the victim.”

In her appeal before the high court, the woman, represented by advocate Himanshu Gupta, claimed false implication and pointed to alleged contradictions and inconsistencies in testimonies from the victim, father, and grandparents. She argued that the essential elements for her conviction remained unproven.

However, additional public prosecutor Manoj Pant, representing Delhi Police, maintained that the case clearly revealed “very serious and grave” criminality, with the woman actively assisting the assaults rather than merely failing to prevent them.

Ruling against the woman, the hight court emphasised that oral and documentary evidence clearly established the child’s repeated sexual assault at a tender age.

It further observed that the woman, who was expected to provide protection and care, not only failed in her duty but also actively facilitated the commission of the offence.

The judgment noted: “Her conduct in silencing the victim, directing her to submit, and permitting the co-accused to sleep with the victim in the same bed and let him 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.”