“Be Careful In Future”: Allahabad High Court Takes Exception To Trial Court’s Judgment Mentioning Alleged Rape Victim’s Name

The Allahabad High Court recently took exception to a judgment delivered by Sessions Court, Kanpur Dehat in which the rape victim’s name was mentioned and said that the Judge should be careful while dealing with such matters in the future. The bench of Justice Samit Gopal said it is well established that in cases like the present one, the name of the victim is not to be mentioned in any proceeding. “Before parting with the case it is necessary to mention that despite Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, various judgments of the Apex Court and High Courts of not disclosing the name of the victim of offence of rape, the trial court has specifically mentioned the name of the victim/prosecutrix while recording her evidence in court and at various places in the impugned judgment. Despite various reminders by the Apex Court about it, the trial court appears to have been ignorant about it,” the Court remarked in its order. The High Court said this in an order passed by it acquitting two rape convicts by extending the benefit of doubt to them. The case in brief As per the prosecution’s case, victim 'X' had gone to the temple with Kumari Sapna Devi from where she was lured and enticed away by the accused on January 8, 2013, and thereafter, on April 19, 2013, she was recovered with the accused-appellants. The convicts were found guilty of committing rape upon a 17-year-old girl by the Additional Sessions Judge/Fast Track Court No.1, Kanpur Dehat. Both of them were convicted and sentenced under Section 376(g) IPC to 12 years of rigorous imprisonment each h along with a fine of Rs. 15K. The accused-appellant Bablu @ Jitendra was further convicted and sentenced under Section 363 IPC to seven years of rigorous imprisonment h along with a fine of Rs. 12K. Challenging the judgment and order, the accused-appellants moved to the High Court. High Court’s observations After having heard the counsel for the parties and perusing the records, the Court found that there were contradictions with regard to the fact as to who had transcribed the application for lodging of the FIR. The Court noted that while PW-1 stated that the FIR was dictated to Kumari Sapna Devi PW-3 whereas PW-3 stated that the same was written by a police officer in which her name was written as scribe. The Court also noted that in the FIR there was no disclosure regarding the details and the name of the accused persons and their names surfaced in the matter during the investigation. It was further noted that there was a dispute regarding the victim’s actual age as well. Regarding the allegations of rape, the Court noted that the medical evidence did not specify any rape being committed on her and even in the supplementary medical report, the doctor had not given any opinion regarding sexual assault on her. Significantly, taking note of the statements of the victim that she stayed with the accused persons for 3 months at Delhi and Bangalore after being abducted, the Court observed that she made no effort to resist her staying with them or make an attempt to get herself freed from them. “On the contrary, there is a suggestion by the defence that victim ‘X’ had married the appellant no.1/Bablu @ Jitendra as in the affidavit of PW1 Smt. Sushila given to the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat which is Exb: Ka-1 to the records she states that her daughter victim ‘X’ had from her mobile informed Sapna on her mobile that Bablu, his mama Sanjay Singh and Virendra Singh have kidnapped her. Despite the same, the First Information Report which was transcribed by Sapna is silent with regards to the disclosure of the name of the accused persons and the same has been lodged against unknown persons.,” the Court further remarked as it stressed that the prosecution case had different versions and different stories by the different persons and the same was not inconsistent throughout In this view of the matter, this Court came to the conclusion that the accused-appellants deserved to be extended the benefit of the doubt. With this, the appeal was allowed and the appellants were acquitted of the charges. Appearances: Counsel for Applicant: Brijesh Chand Kaushik,B.N.Singh,Manish Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent: G.A. Case title - Bablu @ Jitendra And Another vs. State of U.P [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1201 of 2021] Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (AB) 3 Click Here To Read/Download Order

“Be Careful In Future”: Allahabad High Court Takes Exception To Trial Court’s Judgment Mentioning Alleged Rape Victim’s Name

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags