Rape Victim's Identity Shouldn't Be Indicated Unless Such Disclosure Becomes Imperative For Which Reasons Are To Be Given: Patna High Court

The Bench of Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh was hearing a criminal appeal (For grant of Regular Bail) related to offences punishable under Section 376 of IPC, Section 4 of POCSO Act and Section 3(i)(xi), 3(2)v of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

While granting Bail to the Accused/Appellant, the High Court noted that the Lower Court had mentioned in the impugned order the name of the victim and her father's name (also, the informant).

The High Court took into account Section 228-A of IPC and Section 24 of POCSO to stress that identification of a child, in conflict with law or a child in need of care and protection or a child victim or a witness of a crime involved in such matters, should not be disclosed.

Further, the Court referred to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of State of Punjab vs. Gurmit Singh and others (1996) 2 SCC 384, wherein the Court had directed that the courts should, as far as possible, avoid disclosing the name of the prosecutrix in their orders to save further embarrassment to the victim of sex crime.

The anonymity of the victim of the crime must be maintained as far as possible throughout, the Supreme Court had ruled.

Also, the Supreme Court noticing repeated use of the name of the victim in the order under appeal, observed that the victim could have just been referred to as the prosecutrix.

It may be noted that in Nipun Saxena and another Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703 the Supreme Court had issued important directives to protect privacy and reputation of victims of rape crimes. The bench comprising Justice Madan B. Lokur and Justice Deepak Gupta had issued 9 important directives.

The Apex Court had held that though the bar imposed under Section 228-A of the IPC does not in term apply to the printing or publication of judgments of High Courts and the Supreme Court, in view of the explanation to Section 228-A, keeping in view the social object and preventing victims from ostracizing, it would be appropriate that in the judgments of all the courts i.e. trial courts, High Courts and the Supreme Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated.

Coming back to the instant case, the Court observed,

"There was no need for the subordinate below to have disclosed identity of the victim in the impugned order, who could have been safely referred to as the victim or could have been described by a pseudonym."

The Court further directed,

"In view of the reiteration of law by the Supreme Court in case of Nipun Saxena (supra) it is observed that all courts subordinate to this Court shall ensure strict adherence to the same name of victim of an offence punishable under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D or the offence punishable under the provisions of POCSO Act should not be indicated, unless such disclosure becomes imperative, for the reasons recorded in writing by the special courts."

Related news

The Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) recently issued additional guidelines to restrain print/electronic media as well the general public, using social media, from publishing information related to Rape victim that could "directly or indirectly" disclose her identity.

The Bench of Justice T. V. Nalawade & Justice M. G. Sewlikar was hearing the plea of one Sangita (the mother of a rape victim) who sought a direction to the Print and Electronic Media that the name or identity of the rape victim should not be disclosed.

Case title - Nagendra Kumar v. The State of Bihar [Criminal Appeal (SJ) No.750 of 2020]

Click Here To Download Order

Read Order