Mandate On Non-Disclosure Of Rape Victim's Identity Not Being Followed: Supreme Court Directs Strict Compliance In Pending Cases

Expressing concern over the disclosure of a rape victim's identity in court records, the Supreme Court has directed all Registrars General of High Courts to ensure strict compliance with the statutory prohibition under Section 228-A IPC in all pending cases, including those instituted prior to its 2018 judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India. The Court observed that the mandate against disclosure of a victim's identity is a long-standing position in law, yet it has not been consistently followed.

“In the end, we direct that a copy of this judgment be sent to all the Registrars General of the High Courts to ensure that in all matters dated prior to the passing of this Court's judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, which has mandated the non-disclosure of the victim's identity, and still pending, the proscription in Section 228-A IPC is followed strictly. This has been the long-standing position in law but, it has not been followed,” the Court observed.

The observations came in a case where the Supreme Court set aside the acquittal of a man accused of committing rape on a minor girl, holding that minor inconsistencies in witness statements cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution case in its entirety when the core of the case remains intact.

The Court noted that minor inconsistencies in the witness statements should not be a reason to discard the prosecution's case in entirety when the core of the prosecution's case is not compromised.

“…it is well recognised that human perception, memory and narration are imperfect. As such, the Court has consistently held that minor inconsistencies or trivial discrepancies in the testimony of witnesses do not by themselves make the evidence unreliable…Truthful witnesses may differ in detail due to normal lapses of memory or differences in perception. The essential question is whether the inconsistencies materially compromise the backbone of the prosecution narrative…when omissions or contradictions relate to material facts that form the foundation of the prosecution's version, they assume significance and may create reasonable doubt.”, observed a bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh.

The prosecution's case was that the victim/prosecutrix had left her house on her mother's instructions to bring a 'lassi' from a relative's house at about 07:30 AM, which is 8 KMs away from her home. While she was returning bringing in the 'lassi', the Respondent-accused committed a rape on her, and she returned back home by 09:30 AM.

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced her to rigorous imprisonment for ten years, which was interfered by the High Court doubting the prosecution's case on the ground of founding the prosecutrix/victim's statement of travelling 16 KMs within two hours as highly improbable.

Against the High Court's decision of acquittal, the State appealed to the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the acquittal, the judgment authored by Justice Karol observed that when the core of the prosecution's case remained intact i.e., the victim's testimony about the commission of rape on her by the Respondent being, further, corroborated by the medical evidence, then it was unjustified on the part of the High Court to discard the prosecution's case in entirety merely founding it improbable for the victim to travel 16 KMs in two hours.

“Even if it is the case that to travel 16 kilometres was not possible in two hours, it still is an uncontroverted reality that the factum of sexual assault has not been disturbed. In proving the occurrence of an offence within a particular time frame, the Court does not look for mathematical precision. For the purposes of argument, even if the alleged time frame is extended by an hour, the possibility of the occurrence of the offence is still not shaken.”, the court observed.

The Court said that the High Court erred in discarding the expert medical evidence, especially when the “expert evidence squarely corroborates the evidence of the prosecutrix, that she was sexually assaulted.”

“It is well-established that medical evidence is in the nature of expert opinion and is corroborative in nature. It is equally well established that medical evidence when it contravenes other credible evidence particularly ocular evidence, then in such a situation, it can be kept aside or ignored. That is not the case here. It cannot be lost sight of that the expert evidence squarely corroborates the evidence of the prosecutrix, that she was sexually assaulted. In her evidence, at the cost of repetition, it may be stated positively that she identified him and attributed the act to him. The same has not been challenged or questioned by the process of law. Then the question is, on the basis of some alleged improbability of time, can we ignore other credible evidence? We think not. That would be a stand entirely in contravention of law.”, the court observed.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was allowed, the acquittal was set aside, and the Respondent was directed to surrender to serve the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Headnote

Criminal Law — Sexual Offences — Appreciation of Child Witness Testimony — Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 — SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 — Appeal against acquittal — The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment of acquittal, restoring the conviction of the respondent - held that the High Court erred by prioritizing minor inconsistencies and "mathematical precision" regarding travel time over the credible, unshakeable testimony of the nine-year-old victim - Reiterated that there is no hard and fast rule for testing the competency of a child witness; it depends on the trial judge's satisfaction regarding the child's capacity to distinguish truth from falsehood - Corroboration is a rule of practical wisdom, not a legal necessity, and conviction can be based solely on a child's testimony if it inspires confidence and withstands cross-examination. [Para 7, 8, 10]

Medical Evidence vs. Ocular Testimony — Victim Anonymity — Section 228-A IPC — Held that medical evidence is corroborative and an expert opinion - While it may be ignored if it contradicts credible ocular evidence, in this case, the medical findings of lacerated wounds and a torn hymen squarely supported the victim's version - Supreme Court deprecated the practice of freely using the victim's name in court records, despite the 1983 amendment and subsequent mandates intended to prevent social stigma - Directed all Registrars General of High Courts to ensure strict compliance with the proscription of disclosing a victim's identity. [Relied on State of Rajasthan v. Chatra (2025) 8 SCC 613; State of M.P. v. Balveer Singh (2025) 8 SCC 545; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Manga Singh (2019) 16 SCC 759; State of U.P. v. Ajmal Beg 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2801; State of U.P. v. M. K. Anthony (1985) 1 SCC 505; Para 12- 15]

Cause Title: STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH Versus HUKUM CHAND ALIAS MONU

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC )294

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR Mr. Tushar Bhushan, Adv. Ms. Ujala Singh, Adv. Ms. Gunita Tandon, Adv. Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR

For Respondent(s) :Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C.adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. Harikrishnan P.v, Adv. Mrs. Vibha Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Meenakshi Rawat, Adv. Mr. S. Vadivelu, Adv. Mr. P. Senthilkumar, Adv. Mr. C. Kavin Ananth, Adv.