Supreme Court Starts Anonymizing Identities Of Accused In Rape Cases Found To Be False

It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court has recently started anonymizing the names of the accused in judgments which quash rape cases as false.

On March 18, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR against a person accused of raping a woman on the false pretext of marriage. The judgment titled "Ms.X versus Mr.A" has kept the name of the accused anonymous. On March 7, the Court delivered another judgment, quashing a rape FIR, and the case title was given as "XXXX v. State of Madhya Pradesh".

The law mandates that the identity of the victim woman in rape/sexual offence cases must be kept confidential. Now, the Court has started concealing the identity of the accused in rape cases which are found to be false. A PIL filed by the Youth Bar Association seeking guidelines to protect the identity of individuals accused of sexual offences is pending in the Supreme Court. Last year, the Kerala High Court directed even the names of the accused in sexual offences cannot be disclosed by anyone without the Court's permission. The High Court reasoned that the protection of the identity of the accused flows from Section 327 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

In "Ms.X versus Mr.A", affirming the findings of the High Court, the Supreme Court Bench Comprising Justices BR Gavai, Rajesh Bindal, and Sandeep Mehta observed that no offence under Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code was made out against the accused when the complainant/prosecutrix voluntarily had sexual intercourse with the accused.

Further, the Judgment authored by Justice BR Gavai after perusing the allegations levied in the FIR and also a restatement of the complainant noted that it was not sufficiently established that the accused had sexual intercourse with the complainant on the false pretext of marriage.

“the allegations in the FIR so also in the restatement (Annexure P-6) made before the Dy. S.P., Challakere, do not, on their face, indicate that the promise by accused No. 1 was false or that the complainant engaged in the sexual relationship on the basis of such false promise.”, the court said.

The complainant and the accused No. 1 have been in a consensual sexual relationship for the past several years. The controversy in the present case revolved around the restatement made by the complainant.

Initially, the complainant stated that after she became pregnant, she was taken to the Hospital where she was compelled to undergo abortion, however, the statement of the doctor refuted such claim of the complainant and deposed that no patient was admitted to the hospital on account of lockdown due to COVID virus.

However, after the accused persons/respondents didn't consent to their marriage, she changed her version and stated that she was not taken to the Krishna Nursing Home. The prosecutrix has stated that she was administered some medicine (by the accused no.1) which was not allopathy which led to the termination of her pregnancy.

The court linked the facts of the present case with that of those arose in the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar v. State of Maharashtra and Another.

“To establish whether the “consent” was vitiated by a “misconception of fact” arising out of a promise to marry, two propositions must be established. The promise of marriage must have been a false promise, given in bad faith and with no intention of being adhered to at the time it was given. The false promise itself must be of immediate relevance or bear a direct nexus to the woman's decision to engage in the sexual act.”, the court observed in Pramod Suryabhan Pawar.

“We find that, in the present case also like the case of Pramod Suryabhan Pawar (supra), the allegations in the FIR so also in the restatement (Annexure P-6) made before the Dy. S.P., Challakere, do not, on their face, indicate that the promise by accused No. 1 was false or that the complainant engaged in the sexual relationship on the basis of such false promise. This apart from the fact that the prosecutrix has changed her version. The version of events given by the prosecutrix in the restatement (Annexure P-6) made before the Dy. S.P., Challakere is totally contrary to the one given in the FIR.”, the court observed.

Ultimately, the court held that the High Court had correctly applied the law on the issue and come to a just finding warranting no interference.

“..in the present case, even if the allegations made in the FIR and the material on which the prosecution relies, are taken at its face value, we find that there are no sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. We find that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court by holding that permitting further proceedings to continue would be an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.”, the court concluded.

Counsel For Petitioner(s) Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. C Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR

Counsel For Respondent(s) Mr. M Yogesh Kanna, Adv. Mr. Raghunatha Sethupathy B, AOR Mr. S. Sabari Bala Pandian, Adv. Mr. Santhosh K, Adv. Ms. Monica Saini, Adv.

Case Title: MS. X VERSUS MR. A AND OTHERS

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 242

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment