The Delhi High Court has upheld the conviction of Akeel Azhar @ Rinku and the mother of three minor sisters for penetrative sexual assault, aggravated POCSO offences, and abetment, following years of repeated abuse within their home that was ignored by the mother until a school awareness session brought the ordeal to light.
A legal battle that exposed institutional failure within a family household has culminated at the Delhi High Court, where judges affirmed the convictions of both the primary offender and a mother who looked away. According to court records, the case centers on three minor sisters who were repeatedly subjected to penetrative sexual assault by their cousin, Akeel Azhar, also known as Rinku, who resided with the family. The proceedings revealed not only the gravity of the assaults but also the complicity of a parent who actively dismissed her daughters’ desperate pleas for protection.
From School Awareness to a Criminal Investigation
Armed with this crucial understanding, the child confided in her teacher, breaking a cycle of fear enforced by physical assaults and violent threats. Following the disclosure, authorities registered a First Information Report (FIR), conducted medical examinations, and recorded formal statements of the children under Section 164 of the CrPC.
During the investigation and subsequent trial, the children detailed how they had informed their mother about the abuse on multiple occasions. Instead of intervening or shielding her daughters, the mother dismissed their complaints entirely, assured them that such conduct was normal, and permitted the accused cousin to continue living under the same roof. The Trial Court ultimately convicted the cousin for aggravated penetrative sexual assault and related offences under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), while holding the mother accountable for abetment under Section 17 of the POCSO Act read with Section 6 and Section 109 of the IPC.
Challenging the Evidence and the Defense Arguments
Seeking to overturn the trial court’s verdict, both convicts brought their cases before the Delhi High Court. The defense raised multiple challenges regarding the integrity of the prosecution’s evidence. According to court documents, lawyers for the accused argued that the case suffered from significant inconsistencies, pointing out that a forensic report failed to detect male DNA despite allegations of recent sexual assault. Furthermore, the defense highlighted that one of the victims did not support the prosecution during the trial, and pointed to variations in statements concerning the duration of the abuse and the exact residence of the accused.
The mother mounted a separate defense, arguing that mere knowledge of an offence could not legally amount to abetment. Her legal representation contended that a conviction under Section 17 of the POCSO Act required proof of intentional instigation, conspiracy, or active assistance—elements they claimed were entirely absent. Additionally, the defense argued that the eldest victim had subsequently claimed she made her original allegations under the influence of her teacher and counsellor, which they argued rendered the entire prosecution case unreliable.
State Response and Judicial Scrutiny of Witness Credibility
In response, the State maintained that the testimonies of the two principal child victims remained consistent throughout the investigation and the trial. Prosecutors argued that these accounts were fully corroborated by surrounding circumstances and medical evidence. Addressing the forensic gaps raised by the defense, the State submitted that the absence of male DNA was not decisive, explaining that biological material can degrade over time and that forensic findings serve to corroborate rather than replace reliable ocular testimony.
The Delhi High Court reinforced established legal principles regarding child testimonies in sexual offence cases. Judges reiterated that convictions can rest solely on the credible testimony of a prosecutrix without requiring independent corroboration. The Court observed that minor discrepancies in the evidence of child witnesses—such as dates, sequence of events, or peripheral details—are entirely natural and insufficient to discredit an otherwise reliable testimony. On the medical front, the bench noted that a negative DNA report or alternative explanations for a torn hymen cannot override trustworthy eyewitness testimony unless the medical evidence completely invalidates the prosecution’s version.
Redefining Parental Duty as Intentional Aid by Illegal Omission
A critical legal aspect of the High Court’s ruling examined the extent of a parent’s liability when they fail to act. Interpreting Sections 16 and 17 of the POCSO Act, the Court established that intentional aid can manifest through an illegal omission. When a parent knowingly fails to protect a child despite repeated disclosures of sexual abuse and continues to expose that child to danger, such a deliberate omission constitutes intentional aid under the statute.
The prosecution successfully argued that the mother was under a clear legal and parental duty to protect her daughters. Instead of fulfilling that obligation, she permitted the accused to remain in the household and facilitated continued abuse through her inaction. By upholding the convictions, the Delhi High Court affirmed that turning a blind eye to domestic sexual violence carries the full weight of criminal liability under child protection laws.
