Ms. X vs The State Of Jharkhand

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.