MS. XversusTHE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.

156                       [2021]
               SUPREME COURT     1 S.C.R. 156
                              REPORTS                       [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A                                    MS. X
                                        v.
                   THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.
                     (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1352 of 2019)
B                             JANUARY 20, 2021
            [ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY AND
                       M. R. SHAH, JJ.]
            Crime Against Women:
C            Rape victim – Rehabilitation of – Writ petition u/Art. 32 – By
      the victim – Seeking rehabilitation – Alleging that many people raped
      her for which criminal proceedings were initiated – She, with her
      three children has no means of survival and is not able to give
      education to her children – Her identity has been disclosed by media
      as a rape victim – The administration, media and society has been
D
      alleged to compel her to lead a life with no security, no job and no
      shelter – Held: The petitioner is a rape victim and hence deserves
      treatment as rape victim by all the authorities – There is a statutory
      scheme already enforced in the State concerned framed u/s.357A
      Cr.P.C. for grant of compensation and the petitioner has already
E     been paid the compensation under the Scheme – The Authorities
      concerned are directed to take measures to ensure free education
      to the minor children of the petitioner till they attain the age of 14
      years and also to consider her case for allotment of housing
      accommodation under any of Central or State Schemes – Police is
      directed to review the police security provided to her from time to
F
      time – Legal Services Authority is directed to render legal services
      to her as may be deemed fit – Jharkhand Victim Compensation
      Scheme, 2012 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.357A.
            Penal Code, 1860:
G            s.228-A – Disclosure of identity of rape victim – Is an offence
      – All including media (print as well as electronic) have to follow the
      law.



H
                                       156
         MS. X v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.                        157


      Disposing of the petition, the Court                             A
      HELD : 1.1 There can be no denial that the petitioner is a
rape victim. Even if other criminal cases filed by the petitioner
under Section 376 IPC are not take into consideration, in Case
No.162/2002 where allegation of rape was made on 08.06.2002,
the accused has been convicted under Section 376(2)(g) IPC for         B
10 years RI. The petitioner being a rape victim deserves
treatment as rape victim by all the authorities. A rape victim
suffers not only a mental trauma but also discrimination from the
society. [Paras 16 and 17][161-G-H; 162-A-B]
       1.2 The petitioner has two sons and one daughter. The           C
eldest son, of the petitioner, as on date is major and two children
of the petitioner are still minor. 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. [Parsa 19 and 27    D
(1)][162-F-G; 165-D-E]
      Nipun Saxena and Another vs. Union of India and
      Others (2019) 2 SCC 703 : [2018] 14 SCR 755 – relied
      on.
                                                                       E
      2. Section 228-A of the Penal Code which has been inserted
by Amendment Act 43 of 1983 with effect from 25.12.1983 makes
disclosure of the identity of the victim an offence. The law with
regard to Section 228A is well established, all including the media,
both print and electronic have to follow the law. [Paras 21 and
23][163-B-C; 164-E-F]                                                  F
       3.1 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            G
06.03.2017. The grant of compensation has been considered
under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, 2012 as
amended in 2016. [Para 24][164-F-G]

                                                                       H
158            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                        [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A           3.2 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 already made
      application to seek compensation under the above Scheme and
      payment of compensation has already been made. [Para 25]
B
      [164-H; 165-A]
             4. 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
C     for allotment of any housing accommodation under Prime Minister
      Awas Yojna or any other Scheme of the Centre or the State. [Para
      26][165-B-D]
            5. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi and other
      competent authority shall review the Police security provided to
D     the petitioner, from time to time and take such measures as deem
      fit and proper. [Para 27 (3)][165-F-G]
            6. The District Legal Services Authority, Ranchi on
      representation made by the petitioner shall render legal services
      to the petitioner as may be deemed fit to safeguard the interest
E     of the petitioner. [Para 27 (4)][165-G]
                             Case Law Reference
      [2018] 14 SCR 755               relied on                para 17
            CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
F     1352 of 2019.
                  (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India)
            Tapesh Kumar Singh, Aditya Pratap Singh, Ms. Bhaswati Singh,
      Advs. for the Respondents.
G           Petitioner-in-person
            The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
            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.
H
          MS. X v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.                             159
                     [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

      2. This Court entertained the writ petition and while issuing notice   A
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.
                                                                             B
          Let the respondent/State file an affidavit giving details of
      all proceedings initiated by 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      C
      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.                      D
      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            E
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 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.                                           F
       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           G
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 was 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           H
160             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     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 got registered by the petitioner against different
      persons,some of which were filed under Section 376 IPC. In the Sessions
B
      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
C     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
D     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 prays for direction to the respondent to protect the
E     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
F     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
G     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 (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
      1989. In other criminal cases either the accused were acquitted or
H
          MS. X v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.                                161
                     [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

trial is pending in some cases. In two FIRs lodged by the petitioner,           A
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          B
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.                                                       C
      13. Shri Tapesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the State
submits that the petitioner has lodged various FIRs 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            D
basis of a 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      E
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   F
several persons and officers. A complaint has recently been submitted
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             G
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
                                                                                H
162            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                            [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A     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
B     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:
                   “12. A victim of rape will face hostile discrimination
C           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
D     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
E     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
F           by the Government.”
             19. The petitioner has two sons and one daughter. Manish Yadav
      appears to have been born after one year of the marriage which took
      place in the year 1998, eldest son, thus, as on date is major, two children
      of the petitioner are still minor.
G
             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
H
          MS. X v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.                              163
                     [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

State has submitted that education upto the age of 14 years in the State      A
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    B
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 the Indian Penal Code which has been inserted in
the Indian Penal Code by Amendment Act 43 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:                                                  C

      “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                D
      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        E
      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            F
          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,
                                                                              G
          by, or with the authorisation in writing of, the next of kin of
          the victim:
            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.                                                           H
164            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2021] 1 S.C.R.


A                  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
B           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.
C                  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
D     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
E           public at large.”
             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
F     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
G
      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
H
             MS. X v. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND & ORS.                                165
                        [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.]

compensation. The petitioner had already made application to seek                  A
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        B
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                   C
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:
                                                                                   D
       (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.
                                                                                   E
       (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.
                                                                                   F
       (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
                                                                                   G
       representation made by the petitioner shall render legal services
       to the petitioner as may be deemed fit to safeguard the interest of
       the petitioner.

Kalpana K. Tripathy                                        Petition disposed of.
                                                                                   H