Name Of Minor Rape Victim Disclosed In Investigation & Trial: Rajasthan High Court Directs Sensitisation Program For Police, Judicial Officers

Expressing concern about a situation where the identity of a rape victim was disclosed during investigation and trial, Rajasthan High Court has proposed an exercise of sensitization for the police officers and judicial officers to ensure that such instances do not repeat.

The single judge bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand noted in the order that the mandatory requirement of Sections 24(5), 33(7) of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO) and Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code is not being adhered to in many cases.

“In this background, the court feels that an exercise of sensitization of the police officers and judicial officers is required to be undertaken so as to ensure strict compliance of the mandatory provisions of law and its requirements,” the bench sitting at Jaipur opined.

A copy of the order will be sent to the Registrar General for placing the matter before the Chief Justice for appropriate orders.

The court has also instructed that a copy of the order be sent to the Additional Chief Secretary (Home Department) and DGP for conducting such requisite programs through the Police Academy for the Police Officers in a regular manner.

Justice Dhand also disapproved of how the identity of the rape victim was disclosed during the recording of statements under Sections 161 and 164 CrPC in the case at hand. The name of the victim had been mentioned even during the course of the trial. The court added that the investigation officer and judicial officer failed to follow the mandatory provisions in the POCSO Act meant to protect the child from unwarranted media attention, which may not be in the best interests of the child.

It is also pertinent to note here that section 228-A of IPC provides for 2 years imprisonment as punishment for revealing the Identity of sexual abuse victims, which the High Court iterated in its order.

The Supreme Court's observations in Nipun Saxena & Anr v. Union of India & Ors (2019) were also discussed by the single-judge bench to fortify the justifications behind why the victims of such crimes shouldn't be allowed to be identified so as to avoid hostile discrimination or harassment in the future. In Nipun Saxena, a Division Bench of Justices Madan B Lokur and Deepak Sharma had also issued important directives to protect the privacy and reputation of victims of rape crimes.

In the current factual scenario, the court lamented that the police and the magistrate had flouted all such safeguards laid down by the lawmakers and the apex court.

Before making the above observations, the court incidentally suspended the substantive sentence awarded to the accused since the victim herself had denied the factum of sexual assault in cross-examination before the trial court. Moreover, the incident was not substantiated by the statements of her parents or other witnesses. DNA report was the sole basis on which the accused was found guilty, Justice Dhand observed.

Since the adjudication in the appeal would likely take considerable time, the High Court allowed the application under Section 389 Cr.PC for suspension of sentence till the final disposal of appeal.

After listing the bail conditions, Justice Dhand has also directed the trial court to duly inform the High Court if the accused were not to appear before it in the first month of every year as directed.

Case Title: Rohit Bairwa v. State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Case No: S.B. Criminal Misc. Suspension of Sentence Application (Appeal) No.1837/2023 in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.3420/2023

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 55

Click Here To Read/Download Order