POCSO Act | Foundational Facts Establishing Offence Must Be Proved To Trigger Statutory Presumption Under Section 29: Calcutta High Court Expectation Of Higher Price In Future Auctions No Ground To Discard Highest Bid Above Reserve Price; Subsequent Sale Hit By Section 52 TP Act: Allahabad High Court AI May Well Serve As Training Wheels But Entrusting It With Pilot's Seat Would Be Both Imprudent And Dangerous: Bombay High Court Appeal Against Acquittal Under Section 138 NI Act Can Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution If Complainant Fails To Serve Notice On Accused: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejection Of Section 348 BNSS Witness Recall Plea Is Interlocutory; Inherent Powers Cannot Provide Backdoor Entry Where Section 438(2) Revisional Bar Applies Absent Gross Injustice: Delhi High Court Limitation Period For Appeal Commences From Date Assessee Receives Copy Of ITAT Order, Not Date Of Pronouncement: Bombay High Court Under Section 254(3) Income Tax Act Section 82 CrPC | Failure To Attempt Service At Known Overseas Address Vitiates Proclamation; Setting Aside PO Declaration Does Not Invalidate Arrest Warrants Or Extradition: Delhi High Court Expenditure Incurred By Defaulting Party Cannot Be Equated With Benefit Received Under Section 64 Contract Act: Karnataka High Court Upholds Setting Aside Of Arbitral Award Under Section 34 A&C Act Vendor Executing Agreement To Sell Pendente Lite Precluded From Compromising Appeal Prejudicially; Intending Purchasers Entitled To Impleadment Under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC: Madhya Pradesh High Court Kerala Rent Act | Examination Of Co-Landlord Spouse Sufficient To Prove Bona Fide Need Even If Spouse Intending To Occupy Doesn't Testify: High Court Personal Accident Coverage Under Motor Insurance Policy Does Not Extend To Borrower; Exonerates Insurer From Liability: Madras High Court Limitation To Challenge Void Sale Deed Runs From Discovery Of Fraud, Unilateral Material Alteration Vitiates Title: Orissa High Court Interim Status Quo Order Automatically Lapses Upon Dismissal Of Suit, Pendency Of First Appeal Does Not Entitle Injunction Under Order 39 CPC: Punjab & Haryana High Court District Caste Verification Committee Has No Jurisdiction Under Section 4C Karnataka SC/ST Act To Cancel Caste Certificate On Private Third-Party Complaint Absent Validation Request: Karnataka High Court Joint Title Presumes Equal Share Unless Exclusive Consideration Proved By Documented Evidence: Kerala High Court POCSO Act | Delay In Cross-Examination Of Prosecution Witnesses Does Not Weaken Sterling Testimony Of Victim: Madras High Court Mandatory Affixation Of Welfare Fund Stamp On Vakalatnama Valid Under List III Entries 23 & 26, Not A Toll On Right To Practice: Telangana High Court Upholds Sections 12 & 12A Of Advocates Welfare Fund Act BSF Personnel Certified Medically Incapacitated Entitled To Disability Pension Despite 'Voluntary Retirement' Label Under Rule 48-A CCS Rules: Punjab & Haryana High Court SARFAESI Auction Purchaser Takes Title Free From Subsequent Attachments, Claim Enquiry Confined Only To Property Rights: Kerala High Court Commercial Use, Late-Night Events In Areas Adjacent To Reserved Forest Prohibited To Protect Wildlife Under Forest Conservation Norms: Rajasthan High Court In Composite Negligence, Claimants Free To Recover Entire Compensation From Any Joint Tortfeasor Without Impleading Other Vehicle: Orissa High Court Regular Magistrate Lacks Jurisdiction Under Section 190 CrPC To Take Cognizance Against Sitting Or Former Legislators; Special MP/MLA Court Alone Competent: Karnataka High Court Specific Performance Cannot Be Decreed On Fabricated Sale Agreement Bearing Sequential Stamp Papers From Decade-Old Mortgage; Section 340 CrPC Applicable: Andhra Pradesh High Court Sole Testimony Of Child Victim Stands On Same Footing As Injured Witness, Defective Investigation No Ground To Discard Credible Evidence: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction U/S 6 POCSO Act, 376 IPC Once Trial Court Accepts Written Statement Without Objection, It Cannot Recall Order To Strike Off Defence Under Order 8 Rule 1: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Court Fee Refund Under Section 69 Or Section 69-A Of Tamil Nadu Court Fees Act If Out-Of-Court Settlement Is Reached After Trial Commences: Madras High Court

Rape Victim's Statement Can not be Disclosed To Any Person Including Till Charge-Sheet-Supreme Court

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court reaffirmed that until a charge-sheet or final report is submitted, the statement of a rape victim made according to Section 164 CrPC should not be divulged to anyone, including the accused.

A contempt petition highlighting a breach of mandatory instructions issued in State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police vs. Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna - (2014) 8 SCC 913 and A vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - (2020) 10 SCC 505 was being considered by the bench of CJI UU Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi.

The bench further recommended that the High Courts change or modify the Criminal Practice and Trial Rules in a way that incorporates provisions compatible with these decisions' directives.

According to the contempt petitioner, the accused in the case requested and received a copy of the daughter of the petitioner's statement that was recorded under Section 164 CrPC.

"Although the response provided by the relevant Court in response to the questions posed by this Court claims that no one was given such a copy, the papers currently on file show that the accused did request it and was given the copy with a stamp issued by the Copying Department.

Theoretically, the contempt petition's assertion that the accused received a copy of the document against the court's authorised announcements and directives is accurate. The copy of the statement made pursuant to Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code was also heavily cited during the Court proceedings. It is very sad that the relevant Court did not also observe a breach of the orders given by this Court "The bench declared.

However, the court declared that it will not use its jurisdiction over contempt in this case.

The petitioner's attorney emphasised that there are no provisions that go along with the directives in the aforementioned decisions in the Rules of Criminal Practice/Criminal Trial created by the High Courts of the nation. The Court consequently agreed with the counsel's opinion that the Practice Rules established by various High Courts must contain and incorporate clauses in line with the legal principles stated in the aforementioned decisions.

Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna is being sued by the State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police.

The investigating officer must take action right once to transport the victim to a Metropolitan Magistrate—preferably a Judicial Magistrate—so that her statement can be recorded in accordance with Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. With the explicit instruction that the contents of the statement under Section 164 CrPC should not be divulged to anyone until a charge-sheet or report under Section 173 CrPC is filed, a copy of the statement under Section 164 CrPC should be promptly given to the investigating officer.

The investigating officer must take the victim as close to the Lady Metropolitan or Lady Judicial Magistrate as practicable.

The investigating officer must specifically note the date and time that he first became aware that the crime of rape had been committed, as well as the day and time that he took the victim to the Metropolitan/preferably Lady Judicial Magistrate as stated above.

The investigating officer shall note the reasons for the delay in the case diary and give a copy of it to the magistrate if the victim's transportation to the magistrate takes longer than 24 hours.

victim's medical examination: Section 164-

A CrPC that was added to the CrPC by Act 25 of 2005 requires the investigating officer to arrange for the rape victim to undergo an immediate medical examination. The Magistrate who records the victim's statement in accordance with Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code should receive a copy of the report of such a medical examination as away.

In A v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the court determined that unless the proper orders are issued by the court following the filing of the charge-sheet, no individual is entitled to a copy of a statement made under Section 164 CrPC.

It was noted that the right to acquire a copy of such a statement will not become available prior to the taking of cognizance and at the level envisioned by Sections 207 and 208 CrPC.

X vs M Mahender Reddy

Latest Legal News