caselaws.org
Supreme Court of India
Ms. X vs The State Of Jharkhand on 20 January, 2021Author: Ashok Bhushan
Bench: Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, M.R. Shah
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1352 OF 2019
MS. X …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
This writ petition has been filed by a rape victim
invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32
of the Constitution.
2. This Court entertained the writ petition and while
issuing notice on 29.11.2020 passed the following order:
“Issue notice.
Mr. Tapesh Kumar Singh, learned standing
counsel for the State of Jharkhand, accepts notice
on behalf of respondent/State.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Rajni Mukhi
Date: 2021.01.20
15:31:24 IST
Let the respondent/State file an affidavit
Reason:
giving details of all proceedings initiated by
2
the petitioner or against her and the status of
those proceedings.
We, however, observe that the respondent
no.3/Home Secretary shall also ensure that the
concerned police authorities are instructed to
ensure protection of the petitioner.
List after four weeks.”
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
State of Jharkhand to which rejoinder has also been filed
by the petitioner. The petitioner has also filed certain
additional documents.
4. From the pleadings of the parties following facts
emerged:
The petitioner claims to be a Scheduled Tribe in the
State of Jharkhand. The petitioner was born on
24.12.1984. On 31.03.1998, petitioner was taken away by
one Basant Yadav. Petitioner’s father, Rajender Badaik,
lodged a complaint. Basant Yadav was apprehended on
02.04.1998. Father of the petitioner and Police of the
concerned Police Station got the marriage of the
petitioner solemnised with Basant Yadav. After one year
3
of the marriage, one son was born, named Manish Yadav.
Petitioner filed a complaint as well as case for
maintenance against her husband, Basant Yadav.
5. The petitioner obtained divorce from Basant Yadav
and the custody of son was given to Basant Yadav. On
08.06.2002, petitioner went to Dultonganj on asking of
Basant Yadav to meet her son on which date she was raped
by one Mohd. Ali and three other accused. Case No.162 of
2002 under Section 376/34 read with Section 3(xi) of the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989was registered in which accused,
Mohd. Ali was apprehended and put on trial.
6. The petitioner lodged an FIR against the DY.
Inspector General of Police on 02.08.2005 under Section
376,376(2)(a)IPC and Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act,1989 on which on 03.08.2005 Case No.304 of 2005 was
registered.The petitioner also lodged an FIR against an
Inspector General of Police on which Sessions Trial
No.257/2006 was registered. Certain other criminal cases
4
got registered by the petitioner against different
persons,some of which were filed under Section 376 IPC.
In the Sessions Trial 11 of 2006, the accused Mohd Ali
was convicted on 15.02.2014 with 10 years RI.
7. In the FIR lodged against Dy. Inspector General of
Police final report was submitted which was accepted by
the Court on 06.08.2007 insofar as FIR lodged against
Inspector General of Police, Sessions Judge acquitted the
Inspector General of Police by judgment and order dated
23.12.2017 against which criminal appeal has been filed
in the High Court of Jharkhand. A criminal case was also
lodged against the petitioner.
8. The petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that
she being the rape victim, whose identity was disclosed
by the media and after knowing that the petitioner is a
rape victim, no one is ready to give her accommodation
even on rent. The petitioner in the writ petition invoked
jurisdiction of this Court in the matter of
rehabilitation of the petitioner. The petitioner also
5
prays for direction to the respondent to protect the
petitioner and her children’s life. The petitioner after
divorce from her first husband got married to one Rajesh
Kujur with whom a son was also born. The petitioner has
also lodged criminal case being No.56/2004 against her
husband Rajesh Kujur which resulted in acquittal.
9. The petitioner has also filed a copy of the legal
notice dated 09.08.2019 which was sent by the landlord
of the petitioner asking the petitioner to vacate the
premises on the ground of non-payment of rent. The
petitioner sent a letter dated 05.12.2019 stating that
the landlord had sealed the house on 04.12.2019.
10. In the counter-affidavit by the State, the State has
given a tabular chart containing status of 7 criminal
cases which were initiated by the petitioner. In
paragraph 7 one of the cases mentioned in the chart is
the case filed against Mohd. Ali, Mohd. Ali was convicted
on 15.02.2014 under Section 376(2)(g) IPC and Section
3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
6
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. In other criminal
cases either the accused were acquitted ortrial is
pending in some cases. In two FIRs lodged by the
petitioner, in the year 2018 under Section 354 A(ii) as
well as under Section 376, 448 and 506 IPC respectively
the investigation is said to be going on.
11. The petitioner has appeared in person. Shri Tapesh
Kumar Singh, learned counsel has appeared for the State
of Jharkhand.
12. The petitioner submits that due to the petitioner
being rape victim she is not getting any help from family
friends or society. She, with three children, has no
means of survival and she is not able to give education
to her children. The administration, media and society
has compelled the petitioner to lead a life with no
security, no job and no shelter in future.
13. Shri Tapesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
State submits that the petitioner has lodged various FIRs
7
alleging rape against several persons. It is submitted
that against the petitioner also an FIR was lodged at
Palamau Sadar PoliceCase No.194 of 2002 for the
commission of the offences under Section 25(1-b)a of Arms
Act,on the basis ofa written report submitted by the
Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police in which charge-sheet
has also been filed. It is submitted that since
02.10.2019 an armed Lady Constable, namely, Suman Surin
has been deputed with the writ petitioner for her
security.
14. It is further submitted that the State has taken care
of making security arrangement of the petitioner and in
pursuance of the order dated 06.01.2020 another security
personnel has been deputed with the writ petitioner.
Learned counsel, however, submits that the Police
authority may be permitted to review the security from
time to time to take appropriate measures in that regard.
Shri Singh further submits that the petitioner is in a
habit of making false allegations against several persons
and officers. A complaint has recently been submitted
8
making allegations of offences under Section 376 IPC. It
is submitted that the petitioner has vacated the earlier
accommodation of Subodh Thakur.
15. We have heard the petitioner in person as well as
learned counsel appearing for the State.
16. There can be no denial that the petitioner is a rape
victim. Even if we do not take into consideration other
criminal cases filed by the petitioner under Section 376
IPC, in Case No.162/2002 where allegation of rape was
made on 08.06.2002 the accused, Mohd. Ali has been
convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for 10 years RI.
The petitioner being a rape victim deserves treatment as
rape victim by all the authorities.
17. A rape victim suffers not only a mental trauma but
also discrimination from the society. We may refer to the
judgment of this Court in Nipun Saxena and another vs.
Union of India and others, (2019) 2 SCC 703, wherein
following observations were made by this Court:
9
“12. A victim of rape will face hostile
discrimination and social ostracisation in
society. Such victim will find it difficult to
get a job, will find it difficult to get married
and will also find it difficult to get integrated
in society like a normal human being. ………”
18. The petitioner herself has brought on record few
orders passed in Writ Petition (Cr.)No.229 of 2014 (Padma
@ Shushma Badaik vs. The State of Jharkhand and
others)filed by the petitioner before the High Court of
Jharkhand where in the order dated 12/11.09.2015
statement on behalf of the Counsel for the State was
recorded by the High Court that State is ready to provide
free education to the children of the writ petitioner.
Following is the statement recorded by the High court on
12/11.09.2015:
“Counsel for the State has submitted that
State is ready to provide free education to the
children of the writ petitioner. If she will
give her consent, her children shall be admitted
in the Govt. Boarding School at Gumla and the
expenses shall be borne by the Government.”
19. The petitioner has two sons and one daughter. Manish
Yadav appears to have been born after one year of the
10
marriage which took place in the year 1998, eldest son,
thus, as on date is major, two children of the petitioner
are still minor.
20. On an inquiry by the Court as to which authority is
to ensure that the minor children of the petitioner are
provided free education, learned counsel submitted that
it is Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi who can take the
appropriate measures to ensure that the minor children of
the petitioner are provided free education. Learned
counsel for the State has submitted that education upto
the age of 14 years in the State of Jharkhand is free
which is provided by the State. We, thus, are of the view
that Deputy Commissioner shall take appropriate steps to
ensure that minor children of the petitioner are provided
free education in any Government Institution at Ranchi.
21. The petitioner has also raised grievance regarding
her identity which has been disclosed by the media. The
petitioner has annexed certain materials along with writ
petition and the additional documents. Section 228-A of
11
the Indian Penal Code which has been inserted in the
Indian Penal Code by Amendment Act43 of 1983 with effect
from 25.12.1983 makes disclosure of the identity of the
victim is an offence. Section 228-A is as follows:
“Section 228A. Disclosure of identity of the
victim of certain offences etc.—(1) Whoever
prints or publishes the name or any matter which
may make known the identity of any person against
whom an offence under section 376, section 376A,
section 376B, section 376C or section 376D is
alleged or found to have been committed
(hereafter in this section referred to as the
victim) shall be punished with imprisonment of
either description for a term which may extend
to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) extends to
any printing or publication of the name or any
matter which may make known the identity of the
victim if such printing or publication is—
(a) by or under the order in writing of
the officer-in-charge of the police station
or the police officer making the
investigation into such offence acting in
good faith for the purposes of such
investigation; or
(b) by, or with the authorisation in
writing of, the victim; or
(c) where the victim is dead or
minor or of unsound mind, by, or with the
authorisation in writing of, the next of kin
of the victim:
12
Provided that no such authorisation shall be
given by the next of kin to anybody other than
the chairman or the secretary, by whatever name
called, of any recognised welfare institution or
organisation.
Explanation.—For the purposes of this sub-
section, “recognised welfare institution or
organisation” means a social welfare institution
or organisation recognised in this behalf by the
Central or State Government.
(3) Whoever prints or publishes any matter in
relation to any proceeding before a court
with respect to an offence referred to in sub-
section (1) without the previous permission of
such Court shall be punished with imprisonment
of either description for a term which may extend
to two years and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation.—The printing or publication of
the judgment of any High Court or the Supreme
Court does not amount to an offence within the
meaning of this section.”
22. This Court in Nipun Saxena and another (supra) has
occasion to consider Section 228-A wherein this Court in
para 50.1 has issued following directions:
“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.”
13
23. The law with regard to Section 228A is well
established, all including the media, both print and
electronic have to follow the law.
24. With regard to the payment of compensation to the
petitioner as a rape victim, along with additional
documents the petitioner has brought on record materials
to indicate that the decision was taken by the District
Legal Services Authority, Ranchi to pay compensation of
Rs.1,00,000/- by letter dated 06.03.2017. The letter of
the Secretary, District Legal Services Authority, Ranchi
has been brought on record by the petitioner herself. The
grant of compensation has been considered under the
Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012 as amended in
2016.
25. There is a statutory scheme already enforced in the
State of Jharkhand framed under Section 357A of the Code
of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973,which provides
procedure for grant of compensation. The petitioner had
14
already made application to seek compensation under the
above Scheme and payment of compensation has already been
made.
26. The next grievance which has been highlighted by the
petitioner is the petitioner’s inability to get any
rented accommodation in Ranchi due to she being a rape
victim. In the counter-affidavit filed by the State, it
is clear that the petitioner has lived at
several/different places but due to the dispute with the
landlord she has to leave the premises. There are various
Central as well as State Schemes for providing
residential accommodation to persons living below poverty
line and other deserving cases, the Deputy Commissioner,
Ranchi may consider the case of the petitioner for
allotment of any housing accommodation under Prime
Minister Awas Yojna or any other Scheme of the Centre or
the State.
27. In view of the foregoing discussion, we dispose of
this writ petition with the following directions:
15
(1) The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi is directed to
take measure to ensure that minor children of
the petitioner are provided free education in
any of the Government Institutions in District
Ranchi where the petitioner is residing till
they attain the age of 14 years.
(2) The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi may also
consider the case of the petitioner for
providing house under Prime Minister Awas Yojna
or any other Central or State Scheme in which
petitioner could be provided accommodation.
(3) The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi and
other competent authority shall review the
Police security provided to the petitioner from
time to time and take such measures as deem fit
and proper.
(4) The District Legal Services Authority, Ranchi on
representation made by the petitioner shall
16
render legal services to the petitioner as may
be deemed fit to safeguard the interest of the
petitioner.
………………….J.
( ASHOK BHUSHAN )
………………….J.
( R. SUBHASH REDDY )
………………….J.
( M.R. SHAH )
New Delhi,
January 20, 2021.
Comments