Summary
The Supreme Court declined to interfere with the rape and wrongful-confinement convictions and sentences. It nevertheless directed corrective action because the trial and High Court judgments repeatedly identified the victim. Even with the statutory exception for publication of superior-court judgments, courts should make every effort to protect a sexual-offence victim’s identity.
Issues
- Whether the judgments required corrective directions to protect the victim’s identity despite dismissal of the special leave petition.
Provisions considered
- Section 228-A, including Explanation, Indian Penal Code, 1860The superior-court judgment exception did not displace the expectation that courts avoid disclosing the victim’s identity and ensure trial-court compliance with the provision’s mandate and spirit. (¶¶ 2, 3)
Held
- No reason was shown to disturb the conviction or substantive sentences of seven years for rape and one year for wrongful confinement. (¶ 1)
- Courts should strive to conceal the victim’s identity notwithstanding the statutory exception concerning High Court and Supreme Court judgments. Naming the victim throughout the judgments called for corrective record changes and appropriate State trial-court practice directions. (¶¶ 2, 3)
Result
Delay condoned; special leave petition dismissed. High Court Registry directed to place the appeal record before the judge for appropriate corrections and practice directions protecting victims’ identities.