Three Minor Sisters Accused Cousin of Repeated Sexual Abuse While Mother Ignored Their Complaints; Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction for Rape, Aggravated POCSO Offences and Abetment

Three Minor Sisters Reported Repeated Sexual Abuse by Cousin Living at Home; Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction of Accused and Mother for POCSO Offences

Facts

The appeals arose from the conviction of Akeel Azhar @ Rinku and the mother of three minor girls for offences under the IPC and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO). According to the prosecution, the accused, who was a cousin residing with the family, repeatedly subjected three minor sisters to penetrative sexual assault over several years, threatened them with violence if they disclosed the incidents, and physically assaulted them. The children alleged that they informed their mother about the abuse on multiple occasions, but instead of protecting them, she dismissed their complaints, assured them that such conduct was normal, and allowed the accused to continue living in the same house.

The abuse came to light only after the eldest child attended a school awareness session on “good touch and bad touch,” following which she confided in her teacher. An FIR was registered, medical examinations were conducted, and statements of the children were recorded under Section 164 CrPC. The Trial Court convicted the accused for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and related offences under the IPC and POCSO Act, while convicting the mother for abetment under Section 17 of the POCSO Act read with Section 6 and Section 109 IPC. Both convicts challenged their convictions before the Delhi High Court.

Issues

Whether the conviction of the principal accused could be sustained primarily on the testimony of the child victims.
Whether the absence of male DNA and alleged inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence created reasonable doubt.
Whether the victim’s subsequent retraction during the sentencing stage affected the validity of the conviction.
Whether the mother’s failure to protect her daughters constituted “intentional aid by illegal omission” amounting to abetment under Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The accused argued that the prosecution case suffered from significant inconsistencies. It was contended that the forensic report detected no male DNA despite allegations of recent sexual assault, thereby undermining the prosecution story. The defence also relied upon the fact that one of the victims did not support the prosecution during trial and highlighted variations in the statements regarding the duration of the abuse and the residence of the accused.

The mother separately contended that mere knowledge of the offence could not amount to abetment. According to her, conviction under Section 17 of the POCSO Act required proof of intentional instigation, conspiracy, or active assistance, none of which had been established. It was also argued that the eldest victim had later stated that she had made allegations under the influence of her teacher and counsellor, thereby rendering the prosecution case unreliable.

Respondent’s Arguments

The State submitted that the testimonies of the two principal child victims remained consistent throughout the investigation and trial and were corroborated by the surrounding circumstances and medical evidence. It argued that the absence of DNA evidence was not decisive because biological material may degrade with time and forensic evidence merely corroborates, rather than substitutes, reliable ocular testimony.

Regarding the mother’s liability, the prosecution argued that she was under a legal and parental duty to protect her daughters. Despite repeated disclosures of sexual abuse, she neither intervened nor reported the offences, instead permitting the accused to remain in the household and thereby facilitating the continued abuse. This deliberate omission, according to the State, constituted intentional aid within the meaning of Section 16 of the POCSO Act.

Analysis of the Law

The High Court reiterated that convictions in sexual offence cases can rest solely on the credible testimony of the prosecutrix without independent corroboration. Minor discrepancies in the evidence of child witnesses regarding dates, sequence of events, or peripheral details were held to be natural and insufficient to discredit otherwise reliable testimony.

The Court further observed that medical and forensic evidence is corroborative in nature. A negative DNA report or the possibility that a hymen could have been torn for reasons other than sexual assault could not override trustworthy eyewitness testimony unless the medical evidence completely ruled out the prosecution version.

While interpreting Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act, the Court held that intentional aid may also arise through an illegal omission. Where a parent knowingly fails to protect a child despite repeated disclosures of sexual abuse and continues to expose the child to danger, such omission may amount to abetment under the Act.

Precedent Analysis

Ganesan v. State – Relied upon to reiterate that a conviction for sexual assault can be based solely on the trustworthy testimony of the prosecutrix without independent corroboration.
State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pankaj Chaudhary – Cited to affirm that credible testimony of the victim alone is sufficient to sustain conviction in sexual offence cases.
Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal – Relied upon to hold that expert or forensic evidence is only corroborative and cannot override reliable ocular evidence unless there is a complete contradiction.
State Rep. by the Inspector of Police v. XXX (Madras High Court) – Distinguished on facts because, unlike the present case, the mother there had protested against the abuse and acted under intimidation, whereas the present appellant consciously ignored repeated complaints and continued exposing the children to abuse.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court found the testimonies of the two principal child victims to be clear, consistent, and mutually corroborative. It held that the youngest child’s hostility during trial did not diminish the evidentiary value of the remaining witnesses, particularly when their statements under Section 164 CrPC and trial depositions remained substantially consistent. The Court rejected the defence contention that minor inconsistencies regarding dates or duration of abuse undermined the prosecution case, observing that such discrepancies are natural when child witnesses recount traumatic events after a considerable lapse of time.

The Court further rejected the argument based on the absence of male DNA, holding that forensic evidence cannot supersede reliable ocular testimony. It also refused to attach significance to the victim’s subsequent retraction during sentencing, noting that the allegation of tutoring had never been put to the teacher during trial and appeared to be an afterthought. The conviction had to be assessed on the evidence recorded during trial and not on subsequent statements unsupported by the record.

Regarding the mother’s conviction, the Court held that the evidence established much more than passive knowledge. Despite repeated disclosures by her daughters, she failed to intervene, discouraged them from making allegations, justified the accused’s conduct, and continued permitting him to reside in the house. Given her legal duty as a parent to protect her children, the Court held that this deliberate failure amounted to intentional aid by illegal omission under Section 16 of the POCSO Act, thereby attracting liability for abetment under Section 17.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court dismissed both appeals and affirmed the convictions and sentences awarded by the Trial Court. It held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the principal accused repeatedly committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault upon the minor victims and that their mother, by consciously failing to protect them despite repeated complaints, intentionally facilitated the continuation of the abuse. The judgment reinforces that credible testimony of child victims can independently sustain conviction and that a parent’s deliberate omission to protect a child from sexual abuse may constitute abetment under the POCSO Act.

Case Details

Case: Akeel Azhar @ Rinku v. State (NCT of Delhi) connected with SXX PXXX (Mother of Victim) v. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Anr.
Court: Delhi High Court
Case Numbers: CRL.A. 1144/2025 & CRL.A. 1272/2025
Judge: Justice Chandrasekharan Sudha
Date: 28 July 2026
Result: Both criminal appeals dismissed; convictions and sentences of the principal accused and the mother upheld.