Before parting, we have noticed that in the
order passed by the learned trial Court, the name of the
victim girl is disclosed. We have also noticed in some
other cases tried by the learned trial Court under Section
376 of IPC or under POCSO Act that the names of the victim
girls or the names of parents of victim girls are
mentioned in the Judgment. Section 228A
of the Indian
Penal Code makes disclosure of the identity of a victim of
certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name
or any matter which may make known the identity of any
person against whom offence under Sections 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D,
IPC is alleged or found to have
been committed can be punished. The Apex Court in State of
Karnataka v/s. Puttaraja [ Appeal (crl.) 506 of 199 7
Decided on 27112003]
, has held that, “Though Section
228A
IPC does not put any restriction to print or
publish the name of victim of such offences in the
judgment by the High Court or the Supreme Court, but
keeping in view the social object of preventing social
victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual
offence for which Section 228A
IPC has been enacted it
would be appropriate that in the judgment, be they of
Supreme Court, High Court or the lower Court, the name of
the victim should not be indicated”. Further in State of
H. P. v/s. Shree Kant Shekari (2004 Cri LJ 4232), the
Apex Court has reiterated that position. The relevant
portion of the judgment in Puttaraja case is quoted
below :
" We do not propose to mention the name of the victim.
Section 228A
of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short
"IPC") makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain
offences punishable. Printing or publishing name or any
matter which may make known the identity of any person
against whom an offence under Section 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D
is alleged or found to have been committed
can be punished. True it is, the restriction does not
relate to printing or publication of the judgment by the
High Court or the Supreme Court. But keeping in view the
social object of preventing social victimization or
ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which
Section 228A
has been connected, it would be appropriate
that in the judgments, be it of this Court the High Court
or the Lower Court the name of the victim should not be
indicated. We have chosen to describe her as the victim
in the judgment."
09. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we
direct that the learned trial Court shall not in future
indicate the name (either full or even first name) of the
victim of the offences under Section 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D
of IPC in the judgment and orders. The said
protection can also be extended to the family of the
victim. The identity of parents/ brother/ sister of the
victim is also required to be protected. This Protection
is also required to be given to the victims and their
parents, etc. in cases under Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act. It is unfortunate that such
directions are required to be given even after the
pronouncement of decision in Puttaraja in 2003.
10. Another fact that is required to be noted that
all the orders and judgments of all the Courts are
required to be uploaded on the website.
In view of
Section 15A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the victim or first
informant has a right to be heard. Therefore, in
applications for bail or appeals, many times (when above:::
said IPC sections or under Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act are also invoked), the victim or her
parent is made party. After uploading of order in such
matters, the identity of the victim would be disclosed and
therefore, directions are required to be given to all the
concerned Courts that precautions should be taken, while
uploading the order or judgment in such bail applications
or any application, so that the identity of the victim or
his / her parents is not disclosed from the same.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2018
Parmeshwar Dnyanoba Nagargoje, Vs The State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 20-08-2018.
ORAL ORDER : (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J)
01. This application has been filed by the original
accused under Section 14A(2) of the SC and SC (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the order of
rejection of his Bail Application i.e. Misc. Appln. No.
61/2018 on 12.7.2018 by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
02. Present applicant was apprehending his arrest in
C. R. No. 48/2018 registered with Jalkot Police Station
lodged on account of the first information report lodged
by the respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under
Section 363, 366A,
376(n) read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(a), 4, 5(l), 6 of
Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act and
Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Atrocities
Act.
03. Respondent No. 2 had filed first information
report in respect of kidnapping of his daughter by one
Govind Bhimrao Kendre. After the registration of the F.
I. R., investigation was carried out. During the course
of the investigation, when the victim was traced out and
her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P. C.
on 9.4.2018 as well as her own statement by Police on
11.4.2018 that the present appellant with the said accused
Kendre had taken her forcibly to Pune, whereupon the
accused Kendre has committed sexual intercourse with her.
04. Appellant contends that he is innocent and has
been falsely involved by the Police. There is no evidence
direct or indirect or even circumstantial in order to show
his involvement in the commission of the crime. The
Father had lodged the report only in respect of the
kidnapping. The appellant is studying in B. A. first year
and he is prosecuting his studies sincerely. If he is
arrested then his career would ruined. He is the resident
of Sonwala and the victim resides at different place and
therefore, there is no question of tampering with the
prosecution evidence. Substantial part of the
investigation is over and therefore, his physical custody
is not required. He, therefore, prayed for his release on
bail.
05. The application has been objected on the ground
that there is evidence against the appellant. He has
taken part in commission of heinous crime, though he was
having knowledge that the victim is a minor.
06. Heard Mr. P. G. Rodge, Advocate for the
appellant, Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, A. P. P. for respondent No.
1 / State and Mr. K. T. Jamdar for respondent No. 2.
Perused the Police papers. At the outset, it can be seen
from the prayers that the appellant has not challenged the
order of rejection of his bail application by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in specific words. He has also
not disputed that the victim and the informant are the
members of scheduled caste. The investigation shows that
on the date of the incident, the victim was 17 years of
age. The statement of the victim would also show that the
accused Kendre as well as the present appellant had gagged
mouth of the victim and made her to sit on the motorcycle
and thereafter, they had taken the victim from Dhorsangvi
Vadhwana
road to Ahmadpur. Thereafter, the present
appellant returned back. Therefore, there is evidence of
involvement of the appellant. Any article may not be
required to be seized from the appellant. However, when
such offences are rampant, strict view is required to be
taken against those persons also, who have taken part in
kidnapping of a minor girl. It was tried to be submitted
that on the basis of whatever statement has been given by
the victim, at the most, the offence of kidnapping would
be transpired against the appellant, which is bailable.
However, prima facie observation can be made that unless
the kidnapping would not have been done, the further
offence would not have been committed and therefore, case
is not made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Offence
of kidnapping was coupled with the offences under the
Atrocities Act and therefore, the application can be said
to be barred under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. No
fault can be found in the rejection of the application for
bail filed by the appellant by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Udgir, Dist. Latur. There is no merit in
the present appeal.
07. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
08. Before parting, we have noticed that in the
order passed by the learned trial Court, the name of the
victim girl is disclosed. We have also noticed in some
other cases tried by the learned trial Court under Section
376 of IPC or under POCSO Act that the names of the victim
girls or the names of parents of victim girls are
mentioned in the Judgment. Section 228A
of the Indian
Penal Code makes disclosure of the identity of a victim of
certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name
or any matter which may make known the identity of any
person against whom offence under Sections 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D,
IPC is alleged or found to have
been committed can be punished. The Apex Court in State of
Karnataka v/s. Puttaraja [ Appeal (crl.) 506 of 199 7
Decided on 27112003]
, has held that, “Though Section
228A
IPC does not put any restriction to print or
publish the name of victim of such offences in the
judgment by the High Court or the Supreme Court, but
keeping in view the social object of preventing social
victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual
offence for which Section 228A
IPC has been enacted it
would be appropriate that in the judgment, be they of
Supreme Court, High Court or the lower Court, the name of
the victim should not be indicated”. Further in State of
H. P. v/s. Shree Kant Shekari (2004 Cri LJ 4232), the
Apex Court has reiterated that position. The relevant
portion of the judgment in Puttaraja case is quoted
below :
" We do not propose to mention the name of the victim.
Section 228A
of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short
"IPC") makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain
offences punishable. Printing or publishing name or any
matter which may make known the identity of any person
against whom an offence under Section 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D
is alleged or found to have been committed
can be punished. True it is, the restriction does not
relate to printing or publication of the judgment by the
High Court or the Supreme Court. But keeping in view the
social object of preventing social victimization or
ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which
Section 228A
has been connected, it would be appropriate
that in the judgments, be it of this Court the High Court
or the Lower Court the name of the victim should not be
indicated. We have chosen to describe her as the victim
in the judgment."
09. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we
direct that the learned trial Court shall not in future
indicate the name (either full or even first name) of the
victim of the offences under Section 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D
of IPC in the judgment and orders. The said
protection can also be extended to the family of the
victim. The identity of parents/ brother/ sister of the
victim is also required to be protected. This Protection
is also required to be given to the victims and their
parents, etc. in cases under Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act. It is unfortunate that such
directions are required to be given even after the
pronouncement of decision in Puttaraja in 2003.
10. Another fact that is required to be noted that
all the orders and judgments of all the Courts are
required to be uploaded on the website.
In view of
Section 15A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the victim or first
informant has a right to be heard. Therefore, in
applications for bail or appeals, many times (when above:::
said IPC sections or under Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act are also invoked), the victim or her
parent is made party. After uploading of order in such
matters, the identity of the victim would be disclosed and
therefore, directions are required to be given to all the
concerned Courts that precautions should be taken, while
uploading the order or judgment in such bail applications
or any application, so that the identity of the victim or
his / her parents is not disclosed from the same.
Registrar of this Bench is to send a copy of this judgment
to the Registrar General of this Court for the purpose of
circulating the same to all the Courts below for their
guidance and compliance. Registry is also directed to
circulate a copy of this judgment to all the Courts in the
State of Maharashtra for their guidance and compliance.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] [T. V. NALAWADE]
Print Page
order passed by the learned trial Court, the name of the
victim girl is disclosed. We have also noticed in some
other cases tried by the learned trial Court under Section
376 of IPC or under POCSO Act that the names of the victim
girls or the names of parents of victim girls are
mentioned in the Judgment. Section 228A
of the Indian
Penal Code makes disclosure of the identity of a victim of
certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name
or any matter which may make known the identity of any
person against whom offence under Sections 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D,
IPC is alleged or found to have
been committed can be punished. The Apex Court in State of
Karnataka v/s. Puttaraja [ Appeal (crl.) 506 of 199 7
Decided on 27112003]
, has held that, “Though Section
228A
IPC does not put any restriction to print or
publish the name of victim of such offences in the
judgment by the High Court or the Supreme Court, but
keeping in view the social object of preventing social
victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual
offence for which Section 228A
IPC has been enacted it
would be appropriate that in the judgment, be they of
Supreme Court, High Court or the lower Court, the name of
the victim should not be indicated”. Further in State of
H. P. v/s. Shree Kant Shekari (2004 Cri LJ 4232), the
Apex Court has reiterated that position. The relevant
portion of the judgment in Puttaraja case is quoted
below :
" We do not propose to mention the name of the victim.
Section 228A
of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short
"IPC") makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain
offences punishable. Printing or publishing name or any
matter which may make known the identity of any person
against whom an offence under Section 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D
is alleged or found to have been committed
can be punished. True it is, the restriction does not
relate to printing or publication of the judgment by the
High Court or the Supreme Court. But keeping in view the
social object of preventing social victimization or
ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which
Section 228A
has been connected, it would be appropriate
that in the judgments, be it of this Court the High Court
or the Lower Court the name of the victim should not be
indicated. We have chosen to describe her as the victim
in the judgment."
09. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we
direct that the learned trial Court shall not in future
indicate the name (either full or even first name) of the
victim of the offences under Section 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D
of IPC in the judgment and orders. The said
protection can also be extended to the family of the
victim. The identity of parents/ brother/ sister of the
victim is also required to be protected. This Protection
is also required to be given to the victims and their
parents, etc. in cases under Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act. It is unfortunate that such
directions are required to be given even after the
pronouncement of decision in Puttaraja in 2003.
10. Another fact that is required to be noted that
all the orders and judgments of all the Courts are
required to be uploaded on the website.
In view of
Section 15A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the victim or first
informant has a right to be heard. Therefore, in
applications for bail or appeals, many times (when above:::
said IPC sections or under Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act are also invoked), the victim or her
parent is made party. After uploading of order in such
matters, the identity of the victim would be disclosed and
therefore, directions are required to be given to all the
concerned Courts that precautions should be taken, while
uploading the order or judgment in such bail applications
or any application, so that the identity of the victim or
his / her parents is not disclosed from the same.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2018
Parmeshwar Dnyanoba Nagargoje, Vs The State of Maharashtra,
CORAM : T. V. NALAWADE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ.
DATE : 20-08-2018.
ORAL ORDER : (Per Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J)
01. This application has been filed by the original
accused under Section 14A(2) of the SC and SC (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 challenging the order of
rejection of his Bail Application i.e. Misc. Appln. No.
61/2018 on 12.7.2018 by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
02. Present applicant was apprehending his arrest in
C. R. No. 48/2018 registered with Jalkot Police Station
lodged on account of the first information report lodged
by the respondent No. 2 for the offence punishable under
Section 363, 366A,
376(n) read with Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 3(a), 4, 5(l), 6 of
Prevention of Children From Sexual Offences Act and
Section 3(1)(w)(i)(ii) of the Prevention of Atrocities
Act.
03. Respondent No. 2 had filed first information
report in respect of kidnapping of his daughter by one
Govind Bhimrao Kendre. After the registration of the F.
I. R., investigation was carried out. During the course
of the investigation, when the victim was traced out and
her statement was recorded under Section 164 of Cr. P. C.
on 9.4.2018 as well as her own statement by Police on
11.4.2018 that the present appellant with the said accused
Kendre had taken her forcibly to Pune, whereupon the
accused Kendre has committed sexual intercourse with her.
04. Appellant contends that he is innocent and has
been falsely involved by the Police. There is no evidence
direct or indirect or even circumstantial in order to show
his involvement in the commission of the crime. The
Father had lodged the report only in respect of the
kidnapping. The appellant is studying in B. A. first year
and he is prosecuting his studies sincerely. If he is
arrested then his career would ruined. He is the resident
of Sonwala and the victim resides at different place and
therefore, there is no question of tampering with the
prosecution evidence. Substantial part of the
investigation is over and therefore, his physical custody
is not required. He, therefore, prayed for his release on
bail.
05. The application has been objected on the ground
that there is evidence against the appellant. He has
taken part in commission of heinous crime, though he was
having knowledge that the victim is a minor.
06. Heard Mr. P. G. Rodge, Advocate for the
appellant, Mr. R. V. Dasalkar, A. P. P. for respondent No.
1 / State and Mr. K. T. Jamdar for respondent No. 2.
Perused the Police papers. At the outset, it can be seen
from the prayers that the appellant has not challenged the
order of rejection of his bail application by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge in specific words. He has also
not disputed that the victim and the informant are the
members of scheduled caste. The investigation shows that
on the date of the incident, the victim was 17 years of
age. The statement of the victim would also show that the
accused Kendre as well as the present appellant had gagged
mouth of the victim and made her to sit on the motorcycle
and thereafter, they had taken the victim from Dhorsangvi
Vadhwana
road to Ahmadpur. Thereafter, the present
appellant returned back. Therefore, there is evidence of
involvement of the appellant. Any article may not be
required to be seized from the appellant. However, when
such offences are rampant, strict view is required to be
taken against those persons also, who have taken part in
kidnapping of a minor girl. It was tried to be submitted
that on the basis of whatever statement has been given by
the victim, at the most, the offence of kidnapping would
be transpired against the appellant, which is bailable.
However, prima facie observation can be made that unless
the kidnapping would not have been done, the further
offence would not have been committed and therefore, case
is not made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Offence
of kidnapping was coupled with the offences under the
Atrocities Act and therefore, the application can be said
to be barred under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act. No
fault can be found in the rejection of the application for
bail filed by the appellant by the learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Udgir, Dist. Latur. There is no merit in
the present appeal.
07. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
08. Before parting, we have noticed that in the
order passed by the learned trial Court, the name of the
victim girl is disclosed. We have also noticed in some
other cases tried by the learned trial Court under Section
376 of IPC or under POCSO Act that the names of the victim
girls or the names of parents of victim girls are
mentioned in the Judgment. Section 228A
of the Indian
Penal Code makes disclosure of the identity of a victim of
certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name
or any matter which may make known the identity of any
person against whom offence under Sections 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D,
IPC is alleged or found to have
been committed can be punished. The Apex Court in State of
Karnataka v/s. Puttaraja [ Appeal (crl.) 506 of 199 7
Decided on 27112003]
, has held that, “Though Section
228A
IPC does not put any restriction to print or
publish the name of victim of such offences in the
judgment by the High Court or the Supreme Court, but
keeping in view the social object of preventing social
victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual
offence for which Section 228A
IPC has been enacted it
would be appropriate that in the judgment, be they of
Supreme Court, High Court or the lower Court, the name of
the victim should not be indicated”. Further in State of
H. P. v/s. Shree Kant Shekari (2004 Cri LJ 4232), the
Apex Court has reiterated that position. The relevant
portion of the judgment in Puttaraja case is quoted
below :
" We do not propose to mention the name of the victim.
Section 228A
of the Indian Penal Code 1860 (in short
"IPC") makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain
offences punishable. Printing or publishing name or any
matter which may make known the identity of any person
against whom an offence under Section 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D
is alleged or found to have been committed
can be punished. True it is, the restriction does not
relate to printing or publication of the judgment by the
High Court or the Supreme Court. But keeping in view the
social object of preventing social victimization or
ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which
Section 228A
has been connected, it would be appropriate
that in the judgments, be it of this Court the High Court
or the Lower Court the name of the victim should not be
indicated. We have chosen to describe her as the victim
in the judgment."
09. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we
direct that the learned trial Court shall not in future
indicate the name (either full or even first name) of the
victim of the offences under Section 376, 376A,
376B,
376C
or 376D
of IPC in the judgment and orders. The said
protection can also be extended to the family of the
victim. The identity of parents/ brother/ sister of the
victim is also required to be protected. This Protection
is also required to be given to the victims and their
parents, etc. in cases under Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act. It is unfortunate that such
directions are required to be given even after the
pronouncement of decision in Puttaraja in 2003.
10. Another fact that is required to be noted that
all the orders and judgments of all the Courts are
required to be uploaded on the website.
In view of
Section 15A of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, the victim or first
informant has a right to be heard. Therefore, in
applications for bail or appeals, many times (when above:::
said IPC sections or under Protection of Children from
Sexual Offences Act are also invoked), the victim or her
parent is made party. After uploading of order in such
matters, the identity of the victim would be disclosed and
therefore, directions are required to be given to all the
concerned Courts that precautions should be taken, while
uploading the order or judgment in such bail applications
or any application, so that the identity of the victim or
his / her parents is not disclosed from the same.
Registrar of this Bench is to send a copy of this judgment
to the Registrar General of this Court for the purpose of
circulating the same to all the Courts below for their
guidance and compliance. Registry is also directed to
circulate a copy of this judgment to all the Courts in the
State of Maharashtra for their guidance and compliance.
[SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI] [T. V. NALAWADE]
No comments:
Post a Comment