Balancing Empathy and Accountability in POCSO Cases — Delhi High Court’s Healing Approach
A Moment of Humanity Amid Legal Proceedings
Imagine this: a young girl sits silently in a courtroom, her eyes fixed on the ground, carrying the weight of an emotional storm. What began as her brave attempt to assert her voice spiralled into relentless legal battles, whispers in school corridors and judgmental stares from neighbours.
Beside her, her mother watches with a mix of worry and determination. She wonders, “How can I shield her from a lifetime of stigma? Will she always be defined by this case?”
What should the court do in such a delicate situation? Should it push forward with strict punishment or consider the fragile emotional and social realities of the victim and her family?
In real life, the Delhi High Court recently faced exactly this dilemma.
The Case Unfolds: A Complex Human Story Behind the Charges
In Zihad Ahmed v. State NCT of Delhi, the Delhi High Court examined a sensitive POCSO case that highlighted the broader societal issues surrounding harassment and trust. The case began with a schoolgirl communicating with a senior student over social media. She eventually shared private photos with him, which he later used to extort money.
The situation escalated when a friend of the senior student further exploited the images, hacking into her social media account and posting them online. Despite making multiple payments under duress, the harassment continued, leaving the girl and her family in distress.
Eventually, she confided in her mother, leading to the FIR in 2019 and subsequent legal proceedings.
The Court’s Resolution: A New Path in POCSO Cases
During the proceedings, the girl and her mother made a plea: they wished to move on and protect the girl’s privacy and future. They sought closure, not retribution. Respecting this, the court struck a delicate balance between justice and compassion. It honoured the girl’s wish for privacy and dignity, while ensuring the accused took responsibility through meaningful restitution:
- One month of community service at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Narayan Hospital.
- A fine of INR 50,000 payable to the Army Welfare Fund Battle Casualties.
This ruling sent a powerful message: justice can be firm yet humane, balancing human realities with legal principles.
Compassion in Judicial Decisions: A Growing Trend
This case reflects a growing judicial trend of adopting restorative measures in POCSO cases where the complainant prioritizes resolution over litigation.
- In 2023, the Delhi High Court quashed a POCSO FIR after the parties—both students—reached a settlement, with the court mandating free medical checkups for government school teachers as part of restitution.
- Another case saw the Court quash an FIR on humanitarian grounds, considering the harmony established between the accused and the complainant who had since married.
Such decisions illustrate the judiciary’s focus on restorative justice—balancing accountability with healing and social realities.
When Strict Punishment is Necessary
While the preceding cases illustrate the judiciary’s compassionate approach, there are instances where courts have upheld the necessity of strict punishment to ensure justice and maintain deterrence.
- In X v. State of NCT of Delhi (2022), the Delhi High Court declined to quash an FIR, observing that the victim’s right to justice cannot be compromised due to familial relationships or matrimonial discord among parties involved.
- Similarly, in Sunil Raikwar vs The State And Anr., the Delhi High Court underscored that the gravity of POCSO offences necessitates thorough scrutiny and cannot be dismissed solely based on a compromise.
Shaping the Future of Justice
While rulings like this are laudable, it also prompts important questions: Could such lenient resolutions risk weakening deterrence? How can the judiciary prevent misuse of such compassionate approaches?
Yet, this ruling—and others like it—reflect a timeless lesson from To Kill a Mockingbird: empathy must guide justice even amid societal prejudice. The court’s balanced approach shows that accountability can coexist with compassion, preserving dignity without harshness.
As society evolves, so must our justice system—towards greater fairness, healing and empathy. Promoting awareness and legal reforms will be key to making this compassionate, nuanced approach the norm.