Supreme Court condemns court’s move to name rape survivor

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has condemned trial courts and high courts for disclosing the identities of rape survivors in orders and directed them to ensure that the names of survivors and family members are not mentioned in court records.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and NK Singh expressed concern that such lapses continued despite statutory safeguards and repeated directions from the Supreme Court. The court made the observation while convicting a rape accused and pointed out that the minor survivor’s name was mentioned in the lower court order.“The Legislature had introduced a provision in the IPC way back in 1983 with the aim of protecting the identity of victims of crime under Section 376 of the IPC. The amendment was apparently intended to address a specific issue that had clearly arisen in the way sexual offense cases were handled: public disclosure of the identity of the survivor.”Strictly adhere to the rule of not naming survivors: SC“Clearly, the intent of this section has been ignored in these proceedings. The names of the survivors are treated like the names of any other witnesses and used freely throughout the record. This must be objected in the strongest possible terms. In fact, this Court had earlier also noticed that the mandate of this section was not complied with,” the SC said.The court said a copy of the judgment will be sent to all high courts to ensure strict compliance with the Supreme Court order.“This is a long-standing position in law but has not been adhered to. It is argued that the main reason is due to the general indifference and perhaps even lack of awareness of the deep shame attached to such criminal conduct by the lower courts,” the Supreme Court said.The Supreme Court, while convicting the accused and setting aside the acquittal order of the Uttarakhand High Court, said the court must not place undue importance on minor differences.“An honest witness may make honest errors or omit inconsequential details, and this normal variation should not lead to a blanket rejection of evidence. However, when omissions or contradictions relate to material facts that form the basis of the prosecution’s version, they are material and may create reasonable doubt… We can observe that the approach adopted by the High Court is to try to find holes in cases that have stood the test of cross-examination. The prosecutor has clearly identified the defendant and made it clear that he forced himself on him,” it said.