Case title: Utpal Mandal @ Utpal Mondal vs The State of West Bengal & Anr.
Case no.: SLP (Criminal) Diary No(s).8058/2024
Decision on: April 4th, 2024
Quoram: Justice Sandeep Mehta and Justice Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale
Facts of the case
The issue in this case pertains to the disclosure of a victim’s identity in a POCSO case. A Special Leave Petition seeking an anticipatory bail was filed before the Supreme Court contesting an order passed by the Calcutta High Court.
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed that the mandatory requirements of Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the I.P.C., which prohibited the disclosure of a victim’s identity, were not followed while recording statements of the victim under Sections 164 and 161 of the CrPC. Further, it noted that the victim’s name was her name is mentioned and had not been masked as per law laid down in the landmark case of Nipun Saxena Vs Union of India. The Court emphasizing on the need for strict compliance with the legal provisions quoted relevant extracts from the said judgement.
The Supreme Court had stated that, “Neither IPC nor CrPC define the phrase “identity of any person”. Section 228-A IPC clearly prohibits the printing or publishing “the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the person”. It is obvious that not only the publication of the name of the victim is prohibited but also the disclosure of any other matter which may make known the identity of such victim. We are clearly of the view that the phrase “matter which may make known the identity of the person” does not solely mean that only the name of the victim should not be disclosed but it also means that the identity of the victim should not be discernible from any matter published in the media. The intention of the law-makers was that the victim of such offences should not be identifiable so that they do not face any hostile discrimination or harassment in the future.”
Legal Provisions
Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act – The Special Court shall ensure that the identity of the child is not disclosed at any time during the course of investigation or trial.
Section 228A of the IPC – This provision provides for up to two years imprisonment with or without fine for those who reveal the identity of victims of sexual abuse in public.
Section 161 of CrPC – This provision provides for the Oral Examination of witnesses by police.
Section 164 of CrPC – This provision authorizes the Magistrate to record the statement of a person or his confession.
Court’s Order
The Apex Court called upon the Judicial Officers and Police Officers of West Bengal to undertake an exercise of sensitization over the issue of masking the POCSO Victim’s names and ensure strict compliance of the mandatory requirement. It also directed a copy of this order to be forwarded to the Registrar General of the High Court of Calcutta for being placed before the Chief Justice.
In light of the mandatory requirements under Section 33(7) of the POCSO Act and Section 228A of the IPC, it underscored the paramount importance of safeguarding the identity of child victims. Through this order, the Bench aimed to aims to prevent further violations of the rights of child victims and suggested the authorities to sensitize over the identity of child victims in POCSO cases and upheld the principles of justice and protection.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
