'Identity Of POCSO Victim Cannot Be Disclosed' : Supreme Court Calls For Sensitization Of Judicial and Police Officers in West Bengal

Recently, while expressing concern over the disclosure of the victim's name while recording her statements in the POCSO case, the Supreme Court called for the sensitization of the Judicial and Police Officers in the State of West Bengal.

“We therefore feel that an exercise of sensitization of judicial officers as well as the police Officers is required to be undertaken in the State of West Bengal so as to ensure strict compliance of this mandatory requirement. A copy of this Order shall be forward to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta for being placed before the Hon'ble Chief Justice.”, the Bench comprising Justices Sandeep Mehta and PB Varale said.

Section 33(7) of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) states that the special court shall ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed at any time during the course of investigation or trial, however, for reasons to be recorded in writing, the Special Court may permit such disclosure if in its opinion such disclosure is in the interest of the child.

Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) makes a provision of punishment for up to two years for disclosing the identity of the victim.

“However, before closing the matter, we must observe that the mandatory requirements of Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the I.P.C. have not been followed in this case inasmuch as while recording statements of the victim under Sections 164 and 161 of the Cr.P.C., her name is mentioned, and has not been masked as per law laid down in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703.”, the court observed.

In the Nipun Saxena case, the Supreme Court stated that the lawmakers intended that the victim of such offences should not be identifiable so that they do not face any hostile discrimination or harassment in the future. Moreover, while discerning the purpose of the POCSO Act, the court observed that:

“A bare reading of Section 24(5) and Section 33(7) makes it amply clear that the name and identity of the child is not to be disclosed at any time during the course of investigation or trial and the identity of the child is protected from the public or media. Furthermore, Section 37 provides that the trial is to be conducted in camera which means that the media cannot be present. The entire purpose of Pocso is to ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed unless the Special Court for reasons to be recorded in writing permits such disclosure. This disclosure can only be made if it is in the interest of the child and not otherwise…. It is absolutely clear that the disclosure of the identity can be permitted by the Special Court only when the same is in the interest of the child and in no other circumstances. We are of the view that the disclosure of the name of the child to make the child a symbol of protest cannot normally be treated to be in the interest of the child.”, the court observed in Nipun Saxena.

Case Title: UTPAL MANDAL @ UTPAL MONDAL VERSUS THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ANR.

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 282

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment