Code of Criminal Procedure

Introduction

• This is a landmark case on the protection of identity of adult victims of rape and children who are victims of sexual abuse.

Facts

• In the present matter, the question raised was how and in what manner the identity of adult victims of rape and children who victims of sexual abuse were should be protected, so that they were not subjected to unnecessary ridicule, social ostracization, and harassment.
• This was one of the issues which arises in these cases.
• The present judgment was divided into two parts. The first part dealt with victims of the offense of rape under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter known as 'IPC'), and the second part dealt with victims who were subjected to offenses under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO).

Issues Involved

• Whether non-disclosure of the identity of the victim covers the preview of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012?

Observations

• The Court acknowledged the societal mistreatment faced by victims of sexual abuse, particularly rape, often being subjected to scrutiny and stigma.
• Emphasizing the need for confidentiality and respect, Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was discussed, prohibiting the disclosure of victim identities.
• Notably, even with next of kin authorization, identity disclosure was barred without competent authority permission.
  • Exceptions apply in cases of deceased or incapacitated victims, subject to stringent conditions.
• It was held that as far as sub­section (3) of Section 228A IPC is concerned, made it clear that the IPC clearly lays down that nobody can print or publish any matter in relation to any proceedings falling within the purview of Section 228A and in terms of Section 327(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC).
  • These are in camera proceedings and nobody except the presiding officer, the court staff, the accused, his counsel, the public prosecutor, the victim, if at all she wants to be present or the witness shall be there. It is the bounden duty of all of them to ensure that what happens in court is not disclosed outside.
• Authorities were mandated to safeguard victim identities, maintaining secrecy in all records and disclosures.
• Additionally, provisions for identifying social welfare institutions were outlined. States and Union Territories were urged to establish 'one-stop centers' in each district within a year, furthering victim support infrastructure.