Don't disclose sexual assault survivor's identity in court documents: Delhi HC to police

New Delhi: Name, parentage or address of a survivor of sexual assault should not be disclosed in any document or report filed in courts, the Delhi High Court has directed the city police.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma called upon the commissioner of Delhi Police to give appropriate instructions to all SHOs and investigating officers to strictly comply with law against the disclosure of identity of survivors of sexual offences.

The court passed the direction while rejecting the bail plea of an accused in a POCSO case. It "noted with concern" that the name of the prosecutrix was mentioned in the status report filed by the investigating officer in the present case.

"The DCP of the concerned area (having jurisdiction over Moti Nagar police station) is directed to sensitise all SHOs under his jurisdiction to strictly ensure that the name, parentage or address of a victim of sexual assault is not disclosed in any status report or document filed before the courts," ordered the court on January 14.

"The commissioner of police, Delhi is also requested to reiterate appropriate instructions to all SHOs and investigating officers in this regard, in strict compliance with law. Let a copy of this judgment be forwarded to the DCP concerned as well as the commissioner of police, Delhi for information and compliance," it further directed.

In the present case, the accused allegedly sexually assaulted a minor girl, who was 12-13 years of age, by taking her away from her home on a false pretext in 2021. It was alleged that he confined her in a room and forcefully established physical relations with her and she was subsequently traced and rescued by her family members.

The accused contended that he was in a consensual physical relationship with the mother of the prosecutrix and had been falsely implicated because the prosecutrix resented their relation.

It was also claimed that in 2021, movement of people was restricted and social interaction was minimal due to COVID-19, and therefore, the likelihood of the alleged offence having been committed in the manner projected by the prosecution was doubtful.

The court said the mere fact that the alleged incident occurred during the pandemic could not by itself be a ground to disbelieve the version of the prosecutrix or presume that the offence could not have been committed.

It stated that the prosecutrix consistently supported the prosecution case and clearly described the manner in which the incident took place in her statement to the police, and the court was therefore duty-bound to accord due weight to her version.

The court added the contention that the accused and the survivor's mother being in a relationship was not a ground to doubt her testimony.

It said the mother's alleged visit to the accused in jail or allegedly accepting money from him also did not dilute the gravity of the offence at this stage.

"The prosecutrix has consistently stated that the accused, whom she trusted and addressed as 'chacha', a relationship akin to a father figure, subjected her to repeated sexual assault. The alleged conduct of the prosecutrix's mother, even if assumed to be correct, cannot be a sole ground to doubt the version of a minor victim.

"The offence complained of is against a child, and its seriousness cannot be assessed through the conduct of a third party," the court observed.

"This court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the applicant at this stage. Accordingly, the present bail application along with pending application is dismissed," the court ordered.