Chattisgarh High Court
Nandkumar Das @ Nandu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 17 June, 2022
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
CRA-1061-2021
[1]
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
CRA No. 1061 of 2021
Nandkumar Das @ Nandu Versus State of Chhattisgarh
Division Bench:
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
17/06/2022Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Government Advocate for the State.
This is a very unfortunate case and a sorry state of affair for our judicial system, as while hearing IA No.01, which is an application filed by the appellant under Section 389 (2) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence and grant of bail and while perusing the record of the trial Court, it has been seen that while recording statements of witnesses the name of victim has been written and disclosed by the learned Special Judge, constituted under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, District Jashpur (C.G.) as also in some pages of the final report/charge-sheet filed by the police of Police Station Narayanpur, District Jashpur (C.G.), which is in sheer violation of various pronouncements of the Supreme Court and the order of this Court passed in CRMP No.1444 of 2020 (Bharat Bajaj vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others) dated 15.01.2021.
Following are the particulars of paper-book in which name of the victim has been CRA-1061-2021 [2] typed and disclosed:
Details Page No. in paper-book Statement of Sandeep Tigga (PW-1) 8, 9, 10 Statement of victim (PW-2) 11, 13, 14 Statement of Dr. V. Bakhala (PW-3) 15, 16 Statement of Leelavati Tigga (PW-4) 17, 18, 19 Statement of Ishwar Lal Minj (PW-5) 20, 21 Statement of Unyas Khalkho (PW-6) 22 Statement of Archana Kiran Tigga (PW-9) 26, 27 Statement of Lalit Singh Negi (PW-10) 28, 29, 30 Statement of Hemlata Bunkar (PW-11) 32 Final Report of police 33, 35, 36, 38 etc.
In the matter of Nipun Saxena and another vs. Union of India and others reported in (2019) 2 SCC 703, their Lordships of the Supreme Court considered the object, applicability and scope of Section 228-A of the IPC and further considering the exceptions to the said prohibition, held that Section 228-A of IPC prohibits not only the publication of the name of the victim but also the disclosure of any other matter which may make known the identity of the victim. It was pertinently held as under:
"11. 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 CRA-1061-2021 [3] 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. "
The decision of Nipun Saxena (supra) has been further followed by the Supreme Court in the matter of X vs. State of Jharkhand and others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 598, wherein in Para-22 it has been held as under:
"22. This Court in Nipun Saxena (supra) has occasion to consider Section 228- A wherein this Court in para 50.1 has issued the following directions: (SCC p.
723) "50.1. No person can print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc. the name of the victim or even in a remote manner disclose any facts which can lead to the victim being identified and which should make her identity known to the public at large."
In light of the aforementioned dicta, we hereby totally deprecate the practice of mentioning and disclosing the name of victim during the course of judicial proceedings as also during crime investigation, as has been done in the present case by the learned Special Judge and by the police.
As noticed, paper-book has been prepared in this case on the basis of the original record of the learned trial Court, in which identity of the victim has been disclosed number of times, therefore, we direct the parties to return back the paper- book in a sealed envelop in the Registry of this Court and the Registry is directed to prepare a fresh paper-book covering/hiding the name of victim in each and every page of the paper-book and, thereafter, fresh paper-book be supplied to the parties and matter be listed before this Court for further consideration. This entire exercise CRA-1061-2021 [4] shall be completed within a period of four weeks' from today and matter be listed on 26.07.2022.
Further, considering the fact that the identity of the victim has been disclosed in this case during the course of judicial proceeding despite decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Nipun Saxena (supra) and directions of this Court in the matter of Bharat Bajaj (supra), we direct that the matter be placed before Hon'ble The Chief Justice on administrative side for consideration and/or taking appropriate action in this regard against the concerned judicial officer.
List this matter for consideration on pending IA in the week commencing 11.07.2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge Judge
s@if