1. Nipun Saxena v.

Union of India (2019)

Case Title Nipun Saxena v. Union of India
Case WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 565 OF 2012
Citation
Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(SC/HC) CIVIL/CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

Hon’ble
Judge(s)
Hon'ble Justice Deepak Gupta; Hon'ble Justice M. B. Lokur

Date of 11.12.18
Judgment
Link to the http://www.delhihighcourt.nic.in/JJC/judgements/Judgment_Nupun%20Saxena.pdf
Judgment
Child Section 23(1), section 24(5), section 33(7) Prevention of Children from Sexual
Rights Offences (POSCO) Act
Concern
Legal Why the identity of rape victims should not be revealed?
Issues In what case, in what circumstances it can be revealed?
involved Whether non-disclosure of the identity of the victim covers the preview of the
POCSO Act?

Facts of  A victim of sexual assault such as rape is dealt with like an “untouchable”
the Case and shunned from society. Commonly, even her family will not
acknowledge her go into their overlay. The unforgiving the truth is that
multiple occasions instances of assault don’t get revealed due to the bogus
thoughts of supposed ‘respect’ which the group of the unfortunate casualty
needs to maintain. The issue doesn’t end here. Much after a case is held up
an FIR recorded, the police, as a general rule, question the unfortunate
victim like a denounced.
 The unfortunate victim’s first brush with justice is an undesirable one where
she is caused to feel that she is to blame; she is the reason for the
wrongdoing; she is the one at fault.
 Section 228 of IPC prohibits the disclosure of the identity of a rape victim.
But certain media houses don’t follow what legal proposition suggests
instead they publish the identity of victims. It was also laid down in the case
of Bhupinder Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, that, in order to
maintain the spirit of Section 228, disclose the identity of the rape victims
ought not to be disclosed.

Arguments  PETITONER- The Court alluded to Section 228A IPC (Disclosure of character
(Both Side) of the casualty of specific offenses and so on.), Section 327 CrPC, 1973
(Courts ought to be open and regularly open ought to approach the Courts),
expressed that vide the Amendment Act of 1983, instances of rape, gang
rape and so forth were rejected from the class of cases to be attempted in
open Court.
 Sub-Section (1) of Section 228A states that any individual who makes
known the name and identity of an individual who is a supposed victim of
an offense falling under Sections 376, 376A, 376AB, 376B, 376C, 376DA,
376DB or 376E carries out a criminal offense. Sub-Section (2) of Section
228A is making known the identity of the unfortunate victim by printing or
distribution in specific situations depicted in that.

RESPONDENT- The respondents clarified that they would prefer not to in any way
diminish the privilege of the safeguard to interrogate the prosecutrix, yet the
equivalent ought to be finished with a specific degree of goodness and regard on
the loose. Endeavors have been made to sharpen the Courts; however, experience
has demonstrated that despite the most punctual reprobation, the first as far in
1996, State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, the Courts even today uncover the identity
of the victim in question. The freedom of speech and expression takes a backseat
because of the said provision. The disclosure of identity and names are impositions
of truth only
 

Other Bhupinder Sharma v State of Himachal Pradesh

judgments State of Punjab v Gurmeet Singh
referred
Conclusion  Victim was suggested to be protected from mental and sociological
by Court torment or mental misery that may follow the deplorable occurrence of
sexual viciousness.
 Society has an obligation to help the victims of sexual brutality and to
guarantee that they return to regularity and begin having a typical
existence. Victims of such viciousness are not stripped of their essential
right to security and are at risk to be protected against pointless open
remarks.
 The area is so clear, unambiguous and the result of it is inevitable and the
inquiry whether the exposure was expected, bonafide or without
information on the law has no significance. Subsequently, the arrangement
of section 228A IPC restricting the exposure of the name by a denounced is
total and can’t be weakened.

Judgment /  The issues which may make known the identity of the individual don’t
Order exclusively imply that lone the name of the unfortunate victim ought not to
be uncovered however it likewise implies that the identity of the injured
individual ought not to be recognizable from any issue distributed in the
media.
 The lucidity additionally prompts the seat expressing that no individual can
print or distribute the name of the person in question or uncover any
realities which can prompt the injured individual being distinguished and
which should make her character known to people in general on the loose.
 Next pointer on which the Court tossed light was on the examination taken
by cops, they ought to likewise quite far either utilize a nom de
plume portray the unfortunate victim except if it is completely important to
record her identity.
 FIR relating the offense of rape against ladies or offenses against children
falling inside the domain of POCSO will not be placed in the open space.
Updates or Correspondence traded or gave with the name of the
unfortunate victim in it ought not to be revealed to media and not be
outfitted to any individual under the RTI Act, 2015.
 Another vexatious issue is concerning the “following kinfolk of the person in
question” giving power to the administrator or secretary of perceived
welfare establishments to pronounce the name of the person in question—
For the expressed issue, Court was of the feeling that, it isn’t important to
unveil the identity of the unfortunate victim to stir general assessment and
supposition, If a crusade must be begun to ensure the privileges of the
person in question, it very well may be done as such without uncovering her
personality. In this way, the Court expressed of without authorization of the
authority, the identity ought not to be revealed.
 Section 24(5) and Section 33(7) of the POSCO Act, makes it sufficiently
evident that the name and identity of the child are not to be revealed
whenever throughout examination or preliminary and the identity of the
kid is shielded from people in general or media.
 Section 37 of POSCO Act, states that preliminary is to be led in the camera
which would imply that the media can’t be available; the reason for POCSO
is to guarantee that the identity of the child isn’t uncovered except if the
Special Court recorded as a hard copy allows such divulgence and exposure
must be made in the event that it is in light of a legitimate concern for the
child, for instance, the identity of the child can’t be built up even by the
researching group, at that point the authorization of photo to be distributed
can be given by the Special Court of Investigative Team.

Abbreviation Log
Versus v
Etcetera Etc.
And &
Another Anr.
Others Ors
Urf/Alias @
Number  No.
 Section Sec

2. K. Prakash v. The State Of Karnataka (2021)

Case Title K. Prakash v. The State Of Karnataka
Case Citation CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.336 OF 2021
Court IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(SC/HC) CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Hon’ble  R. Subhash Reddy J.

Judge(s)
Date of 19.03.2021
Judgment
Link to the https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/kprakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-ll-2021-sc-169-
Judgment 390816.pdf

Child Rights Sec 6 of POCSO ACT: Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault
Concern
Legal Issues Sec 6 of POCSO ACT: Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault
involved Sec 344 of IPC: wrongful confinement for ten or more days
Sec 366 of IPC: abducting or kidnapping with an intent

Facts of the PW-2 had gone to bring chips and milk from a nearby shop but she did not
Case return home for about half an hour. According to the complainant/PW-1,
accused No.1, who was residing near the house of the complainant, was
having love affair with PW-2- victim girl and he was insisting to perform
her marriage with him. The complainant explained to him that she is not of
marriageable age and his request will be considered after the victim
attains the marriageable age. Therefore, the complainant/PW-1, suspected
the role of accused No.1 and complaint was lodged before the police.
Pursuant to registration of crime, the investigation was taken up. After
investigation, it was revealed that accused No.1, with the help of other
accused Nos. 2, 4, 5, 8 and 9, conspired together and kidnapped the minor
girl PW-2, in a car provided by the appellants/accused Nos. 4 and 5.
Arguments learned counsel appearing for the Appellants: High Court has committed
(Both Side) error in confirming the judgment of conviction and Order of Sentence,
though the prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond
reasonable doubt.
It is submitted that the appellants/accused Nos.4 and 5 are the tenants of
accused Nos. 6 and 7 and are no way connected with the crime but have
been falsely implicated at the instance of PW-1 and PW-2.
It is submitted that there are various inconsistencies and contradictions in
the prosecution evidence and in spite of the same, the Trial Court has
 erroneously convicted the appellants and the same is confirmed by the
High Court.
Further, having regard to allegations made against the appellants, the
sentence imposed is excessive and illegal.
Further it is submitted that, as they are having minor child and aged
parents, there is no one to take care of them. With the aforesaid pleas,
learned counsel has made a request to modify the sentence.

learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka: appellants are

convicted for offence punishable under Sections 344, 366 read
with Section 34 of IPC and that PW-2-minor girl was kidnapped at the
instance of accused No.1, as such there is no illegality in the conviction
recorded and Sentence imposed on the appellants. It is submitted that,
there are no grounds to interfere with the impugned judgment.
Conclusion prosecution has proved the guilt of accused nos. 4 and 5 only for offences
by Court punishable under Sec 344, Sec 366 read with Sec 34 of the IPC. Accused
No. 1 was, in addition, found guilty of offence punishable under Section 6
of POCSO Act. All the accused were convicted accordingly. The conviction
recorded and Sentence imposed on the above accused, is confirmed by
the High Court, by dismissing the criminal appeal filed by them, by
impugned judgment dated 06.06.2019.
Judgment /  Though learned counsel for the appellants has argued, questioning
Order the conviction itself but we are satisfied with the reasoning
assigned by the High Court for confirming the conviction recorded,
as such we need not elaborate further. Further, this Court has
issued notice, limited to the quantum of sentence only. Learned
counsel for the appellants made a request to modify the sentence.
 Many factors which may not be relevant to determine the guilt,
must be seen with a human approach, at the stage of sentencing.
While imposing the sentence, all relevant factors are to be
considered, keeping in mind the facts and circumstances of each
case. In the present case, the main accusation was against accused
no.1, who is convicted for offences punishable under Sections
344, 366, IPC and Section 6 of POCSO Act and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for a period of 10 years. Even in the complaint, it was
mentioned that accused no.1 was in love with the victim girl PW-2.
 The alleged incident is of the year 2014 and we are informed that
appellants have already served sentence of about three months
and paid fine amount. They specifically pleaded that there is no one
to take care of their minor son and old age parents.
 In view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, while
confirming the conviction recorded and fine imposed, we modify
 the sentence on the appellants for the period already undergone.
The appellants be released forthwith unless otherwise their custody
is required in connection with any other case. 

Key learned counsel appearing for the State of Karnataka, has submitted that
Takeaways   the appellants are convicted for offence punishable under Sections
344, 366 read with Section 34 of IPC and that PW-2-minor girl was
kidnapped at the instance of accused No.1
 they are having minor child and aged parents, there is no one to take care
of them. With the aforesaid pleas, learned counsel has made a request to
modify the sentence.

Abbreviation Log
Versus v
Mother  PW-1
Prosecutrix  PW-2
Section Sec
Indian Penal Code IPC
Number  No. 

REFERENCE:
For 1st case

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/143288964/

For 2nd case

https://www.advocatekhoj.com/library/judgments/announcement.php?WID=13642
https://www.livelaw.in/pdf_upload/kprakash-vs-state-of-karnataka-ll-2021-sc-169-
390816.pdf
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129757844/