Himachal Pradesh High Court: In an application filed for grant of leave to appeal after being aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent-accused for the commission of offence punishable under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘corresponding Sections 137(2), 87 and 64 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023) read with Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, the Division Bench of Tarlok Singh Chauhan* and Sushil Kukreja, JJ., stated that the prosecutrix herself had not supported the case of the prosecution and had clearly admitted that she married the respondent and had a three years old daughter out of this wedlock. In the crime, once the accused gets acquitted/honourably discharged by a competent Court, and the order becomes final, if the shadow of crime was permitted to continue, it would result in travesty of the concept of life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court stated that there was no dispute that right to be forgotten and right to be left alone were inherent aspects of the right to privacy. Therefore, the names of the prosecutrix and the respondent was needed to be masked/erased so that they did not appear/visible in any search engine. As the same was likely to jeopardize and cause irreparable hardship, prejudice etc., not only to the respondent and the prosecutrix, but to their little daughter in their day-to-day life, career prospects etc.
Background
On 14-10-2017 at about 9.10 p.m., respondent made a telephonic call to the prosecutrix-victim asking her to accompany him and solemnize marriage, lest he ends up his life committing suicide. The prosecutrix met the respondent on the road along-with her testimonials, clothes and an amount of Rs.15,500. The prosecutrix stayed with the respondent and on 16-10-2017, they proceeded to Manali and stayed with one ‘SM’. On 17-10-2017, the respondent asked the prosecutrix to perform marriage and thereafter allegedly committed sexual intercourse with her till 25-10-2017.
On 27-10-2017, both the respondent and the prosecutrix reached Bilaspur. The respondent left her at the bus stand and allegedly disappeared, so prosecutrix was forced to board a bus back to Manali, where she again went to the house of ‘SM’. The said ‘SM’ informed the prosecutrix’s father, who then, came along with the police and took the prosecutrix back. Meanwhile, the prosecutrix’s father had already lodged a written complaint, based on which the FIR was registered. On the charges being framed, the respondent pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to Muralidhar v. State of Karnataka, (2014) 5 SCC 730, Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar, (2022) 3 SCC 471, and H.D. Sundara v. State of Karnataka, (2023) 9 SCC 581, and opined that in exceptional cases, where there were compelling circumstances, and the judgment under appeal was found to be perverse, the appellate court could interfere with the order of acquittal. Further, if two views were possible, the appellate court should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the Trial Court, merely, because the appellate court could have arrived at a different conclusion than that of the Trial Court.
The Court stated that in the present case, the prosecution and not been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The ‘SM’ could have been the best witness to have supported the case of the prosecution. However, unfortunately, she was never examined by the prosecution. Obviously, in such circumstances, the Court stated that it had no option but to draw an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court further stated that the prosecutrix herself had not supported the case of the prosecution and had clearly admitted that she married the respondent and had a three-year-old daughter out of this wedlock. Obviously, in such circumstances, there was no occasion for the State to file the present appeal as once it was on record that the prosecutrix was living happy married life with the respondent, then, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the ground reality and disturb the happy family life of the respondent and the prosecutrix.
The Court stated that in plethora of cases, it had come across that the FIRs were registered with any rhyme or reason or out of knee jerk reactions and the proceedings were ultimately quashed by the Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (‘corresponding Section 528 of Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The Court stated that the respondent could not be seen to be carrying sword of him being accused, for all his life. Right to oblivion, right to be forgotten were the principles evolved by the democratic nations, as one of the facets of right to privacy. The vital principle, which evolved from time to time, had now become an integral part and recognized as a part of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court stated that there was no dispute that right to be forgotten and right to be left alone were inherent aspects of the right to privacy. Therefore, the names of the prosecutrix and the respondent was needed to be masked/erased so that they did not appear/visible in any search engine. As the same was likely to jeopardize and cause irreparable hardship, prejudice etc., not only to the respondent and the prosecutrix, but to their little daughter in their day-to-day life, career prospects etc.
The Court stated that Article 21 of the Constitution takes within its sweep right to live with dignity. In the crime, once the accused gets acquitted/honourably discharged by a competent Court, and the order becomes final, the shadow of crime, if permitted to continue, would result in travesty of the concept of life under Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the Court accordingly, rejected the application for the grant of leave to appeal, and directed masking the names of the respondent and the prosecutrix from the database of the Special Judge, Bilaspur. The Court also directed the Registrar General of this Court to mask the names of the respondent in the digital records, pertaining to the instant appeal.
[State of H.P. v. X., 2024 SCC OnLine HP 3169, decided on 11-07-2024]
*Judgment authored by- Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Appellant: I.N. Mehta, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Sharmila Patial, Addl. A.G and Navlesh Verma, Addl. A.G.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 HERE
