The Supreme Court has directed all Registrars General of High Courts to strictly enforce the prohibition on disclosing the identity of rape victims under Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code in all pending cases, including those filed before its 2018 ruling in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India. The Court said the law has long barred such disclosure, but courts have not followed it consistently.
A Bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh issued the direction while allowing an appeal filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh against the acquittal of a man accused of raping a minor girl. The Court also held that minor inconsistencies in witness statements cannot demolish the prosecution case when its core remains intact.
Court Flags Continued Disclosure of Victim Identity
The Supreme Court expressed concern that court records still reveal the identity of rape victims despite the statutory bar under Section 228-A IPC. It directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to all Registrars General of High Courts so they can ensure strict compliance in all pending matters, including cases instituted before the judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India.
The Court observed that the prohibition on revealing a victim’s identity reflects a long-standing legal position. However, it noted that courts have not followed that mandate in a consistent manner.
Prosecution Version of the Incident
According to the prosecution, the prosecutrix left her house at about 7:30 AM on her mother’s instructions to collect ‘lassi’ from a relative’s house located 8 kilometres away. While returning with the lassi, the respondent-accused allegedly raped her. She then returned home by 9:30 AM.
The trial court convicted the accused under Section 376 IPC and sentenced him to ten years of rigorous imprisonment. However, the High Court later acquitted him after doubting the prosecution version. It found it highly improbable that the victim could have travelled 16 kilometres within two hours.
Supreme Court on Minor Inconsistencies in Testimony
The State challenged the acquittal before the Supreme Court. While setting aside the High Court’s judgment, the Court held that minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies do not justify rejection of the prosecution case in its entirety when the central narrative remains unaffected.
The Bench observed that human perception, memory and narration are naturally imperfect. For that reason, trivial discrepancies in testimony do not automatically make a witness unreliable. The Court clarified that only contradictions touching material facts that form the foundation of the prosecution case can create reasonable doubt.
High Court Erred in Rejecting Core Prosecution Case
Justice Karol, who authored the judgment, held that the High Court should not have discarded the prosecution case merely because it found the travel timeline improbable. The Court noted that the central allegation of rape remained intact and that medical evidence supported the prosecutrix’s account.
The Bench said that even if travelling 16 kilometres in two hours appeared doubtful, that circumstance alone could not unsettle the fact of sexual assault. It added that courts do not seek mathematical precision while assessing whether an offence occurred within a particular time frame. The Court observed that even if the timeline were extended by an hour, the possibility of the offence would still remain.
Medical Evidence Supported the Prosecutrix
The Supreme Court also held that the High Court wrongly discarded the expert medical evidence. It said the medical opinion clearly corroborated the prosecutrix’s testimony that she had suffered sexual assault.
The Bench reiterated that medical evidence is expert opinion and usually serves a corroborative role. It also noted that courts may ignore medical evidence when it conflicts with reliable ocular evidence. However, that principle did not apply in the present case because the expert evidence supported the prosecutrix’s version.
The Court further recorded that the prosecutrix had identified the respondent and attributed the act to him in clear terms. Since the defence did not shake that evidence through due process, the Court held that the High Court could not ignore it on the basis of an alleged improbability in timing.
Appeal Allowed
The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and directed the respondent to surrender and undergo the sentence imposed by the trial court.
Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh versus Hukum Chand alias Monu.
Appearance:
For Appellant(s): Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR; Mr. Tushar Bhushan, Advocate; Ms. Ujala Singh, Advocate; Ms. Gunita Tandon, Advocate; Mr. Ketan Paul, AOR.
For Respondent(s): Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR; Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Advocate; Mr. C. Adhikesavan, Advocate; Mr. Harikrishnan P.V., Advocate; Mrs. Vibha Srivastava, Advocate; Ms. Meenakshi Rawat, Advocate; Mr. S. Vadivelu, Advocate; Mr. P. Senthilkumar, Advocate; Mr. C. Kavin Ananth, Advocate.
Also Read: SC Against One-sided Govt Contract Clauses.
