Kerala HC Refuses To Quash Criminal Case Against Publisher & Chief Editor Of Rashtra Deepika For Disclosing Details Of Rape Victim

The Court noted that the ingredients to bring home the offence under Section 228A(1) is, printing or publishing the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom one of the offences mentioned therein is alleged or found to have been committed.

The Court was hearing a Criminal Miscellaneous Case filed seeking quashing of the final report on the file of the Judicial Magistrate for the commission of offences under Section 228A(1)(3) of the Indian Penal Code.

The bench of Justice A. Badharudeen observed, “…necessary inputs to disclose the identity of the victim in Crime No.297/2017, alleging commission of offence under Section 376 of the IPC, were published. Since Section 228A of the IPC prohibits printing, publishing the name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence…the publication would attract offence under Section 228A(1) of the IPC. Since the ingredients to attract the offence alleged to be committed by the petitioners 1 and 2/accused Nos.1 and 2, are made out, prima facie, quashment sought for is liable to fail.”

Advocate Jomy George appeared for the Appellant and Senior PP C.K. Suresh appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

It is the case of the prosecution is that the 1st accused, who is the printer and publisher of the Rashtra Deepika Publications and the 2nd accused, who is the Chief Editor of Rashtra Deepika Publications published the statements of the witnesses in a criminal case alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 376 of the IPC, among other offences and thereby, disclosed the identity of the victim in the above crime, by printing and publishing the same in Rashtra Deepika Evening Daily.

The Court said that though the publication in no way, disclosed the name of the victim to the reader of the news, but necessary inputs to identify the victim, who acted in the Honey Bee film, who is a native of Thrissur, her participation in the rehearsal camp in 2013 held at Hotel Abad Plaza, and forwarding of messages by the victim in the whats app group, would indicate the identity of the victim.

The Court mentioned the Supreme Court decision in Nipun Saxena & anr. v. Union of India & Ors. reported in [2019 (4) KLT 159], where the SC issued directions to ensure the privacy of the victims of rape and PoCSO offences and made it clear that the identity of the victims of sexual offences including PoCSO Act cases is protected by such conditions.

The Court observed, “In fact, the Chief Editor or the Editor and printer and publisher, are persons in the ordinary course responsible for selecting the news items, are alleged to have committed the offence.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Criminal Miscellaneous Case.

Cause Title: Fr. Joseph Kuzhinjalil v. State of Kerala (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:69392)

Appearance:

Adv. Jomy George, Adv. R. Padmaraj, Adv. Deepak Mohan, Adv. Chitra N. Das, Adv. Rishab S. and Adv. Rona Ann Siby

Click here to read/download Judgment