Ram Prakash Rathour vs State Of Uttarakhand on 12 September, 2018
27. This Court had issued a direction to the
Registrar General of this Court to place a copy of the
order dated 27.10.2017, passed by this Court, along
with judgment dated 01.9.2017 passed by Sessions
Judge, Tehri Garhwal in S.T. No.47 of 2016 before
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for taking necessary action.
The intent of the Court was that a circular be issued in
this regard to all the Trial Judges conducting the
matters pertaining to sexual offences against children
under POCSO Act. Pursuant to the directions issued by
this Court the Registrar General of this Court vide
letter no. 4495/UHC Criminal dated 11.04.2018,
circulated the certified copy of the order of this Court
dated 28.12.2017, passed in Criminal Appeal no. 388
of 2017, titled as Ashish Vs State of Uttarakhand for
information and necessary compliance. Copy of the
order passed by this Court in Criminal Case no. 388 of
2017 had already been circulated to all the District and
Session Judges and the Judicial Officers of the State of
Uttarakhand, but the Special Judge (POCSO) / Addl.
Sessions Judge, Dehradun did not take care of the
circular / guidelines issued by this Court as mentioned
15
above. On the perusal of the impugned judgment, it
would reveal that the trial court has mentioned the
name of the victim, father of victim and name of
relative of the victim, whereas the name of the
relatives, name of the complainant, name of the father,
name of the mother, name of the prosecutrix should
not to be disclosed in view of directions issued by
Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court has
issued directions to all the Judges dealing with cases
pertains to outrage the modesty that name of the
prosecutrix, parents and relatives should not be
disclosed. Disclosing the name of the prosecutrix,
relatives ruin the career and reputation of the
prosecutrix and her family. The Parliament by way of
Amendment inserted in Section 228A IPC. Section 228
prescribed a punishment of imprisonment of either
description for a term which may extend to two years
and shall also be liable to fine on disclosure being
made of identity of victim in respect of aforementioned
offences. In view of this Court, the Trial Judge has
failed to notice the provisions of Section 228A of IPC,
which is not expected from a Judicial Officer. This
Court on several occasions has noticed that most of the
judges dealing with the matters relating to offences
punishable under Section 376 IPC and under POCSO
Act are not taking care of the matter properly.