Court’s Decision:
The Kerala High Court dismissed a petition seeking to quash the final report in C.C. No. 1576/2018. The Court found that a newspaper publication on 20.12.2017, related to a sexual offence case under Section 376 IPC, included enough details to disclose the identity of the victim. Therefore, the actions attracted charges under Section 228A of the IPC, which prohibits the disclosure of a victim’s identity in sexual offences.
Facts of the Case:
The petitioners were involved in the publication of news in a newspaper concerning a crime related to a sexual offence under Section 376 IPC. The news included sufficient details about the victim’s identity, such as her participation in specific events and other identifying information.
Issues:
The primary issue was whether the published news violated Section 228A IPC by revealing enough information to identify the victim in a sexual offence case.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The petitioners argued that the publication did not explicitly disclose the victim’s name or any direct information that would reveal her identity. They contended that the final report should be quashed as there was no violation of Section 228A.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The prosecution argued that while the victim’s name was not mentioned, the details provided in the news article, such as her participation in a film and events, could lead to the victim being easily identified. Thus, it was a violation of Section 228A IPC.
Court’s Reasoning:
The court held that although the victim’s name was not explicitly published, enough details were provided in the news article that would allow the public to identify the victim, particularly since she was associated with notable activities such as participation in a film. The court emphasized the importance of protecting the identity of victims in sexual offence cases, as highlighted by the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India.
Conclusion:
The court dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners’ actions violated Section 228A of the IPC by indirectly disclosing the identity of the victim in a sexual offence case. The interim stay was vacated, and the trial court was directed to proceed with the case. Additionally, the court ordered that any text from the judgment revealing the victim’s identity must be masked in line with legal requirements.
