Kerala High Court Declines To Quash Case Against Publisher, Chief Editor Of Newspaper For Disclosing Details Of Sexual Offence Victim
The Kerala High Court declined to quash proceedings under Section 228A of the IPC against the Printer and Publisher and Chief editor of Rashtra Deepika Publications, Kottayam for disclosing the details of a victim of a sexual offence.
Justice A. Badharudeen ordered that a prima facie offence was made out against the petitioners and dismissed the case.
“In this matter, the 1st accused is the printer and publisher of the Rashtra Deepika Publications, Kottayam, where the above news was published and 2nd accused is the Chief Editor of Rashtra Deepika Publications, Kottayam. In fact, the Chief Editor or the Editor and printer and publisher, are persons in the ordinary course responsible for selecting the news items, are alleged to have committed the offence. Since the ingredients to attract the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioners 1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2, are made out, prima facie, quashment sought for is liable to fail.”
The 1st petitioner (1st accused) is the printer and publisher of the Rashtra Deepika Publications, Kottayam while the 2nd petitioner (2nd accused) is its Chief Editor.
The allegation is that the petitioners committed offences punishable under Section 228A(1)(3) of the IPC by publishing the statements of witnesses of a sexual offence by which the identity of the victim was disclosed in Rashtra Deepika Evening Daily on December 20, 2017.
They have approached the Court to quash the proceedings against them.
The petitioners contended that the publication has not directly or indirectly disclosed details to identify the name of the victim.
On the other hand, the public prosecutor contended that details were disclosed in the publication that would lead to the identification of the victim.
Section 228-A IPC relates to disclosing the identity of the victim of certain offences under Section 376 IPC etc. and is an offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment and a fine.
The Court referred to the directions issued by the Apex Court in Nipun Saxena & anr. v. Union of India & Ors (2019) to ensure the privacy of victims of rape and POCSO offences.
On analysing the news publication, the Court stated that details were given that would disclose the identity of the victim to attract an offence under Section 228A of the IPC.
The Court said, “On reading the publication effected, which led to registration of this crime, as extracted hereinabove, it could be gathered that, necessary inputs to disclose the identity of the victim in Crime No.297/2017, alleging commission of offence under Section 376 of the IPC, were published.”
As such, the Court dismissed the case.
Counsel for Petitioners: Advocates Jomy George, R.Padmaraj, Deepak Mohan, Chitra N. Das, Rishab S, Rona Ann Siby
Counsel for Respondents: Senior Public Prosecutor C K Suresh, ADGP Grashious Kuriakose
Case Number: CRL.MC NO. 2370 OF 2023
Case Title: Fr.Joseph Kuzhinjalil v State of Kerala
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 578