Section 228A IPC Mandate On Non-Disclosure Of Victim’s Identity Must Be Strictly Followed In All Pending Matters: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the State challenging the acquittal of the accused by the High Court in a case involving offences under Section 376 IPC and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

A Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh directed the copy of the judgment be sent to all the Registrars General of the High Courts to ensure that "in all matters dated prior to the passing of this Court’s judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, which has mandated the non-disclosure of the victim’s identity, and still pending, the proscription in Section 228-A IPC is followed strictly".

This, the Bench added, "has been the long-standing position in law, but it has not been followed, ... the primary reason thereamongst, one supposes, is the general indifference of the Courts below and possibly even the lack of awareness of the deep stigma that follows such offences”.

Background

The case arose from allegations of sexual assault on a minor girl, who was sent by her mother to fetch buttermilk from a nearby location. On her way back, she was allegedly taken to a cowshed by the accused and subjected to sexual assault. The incident was subsequently disclosed to her parents, following which a First Information Report was lodged.

Upon investigation, the accused was charge sheeted under Section 376 IPC and provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The Trial Court, upon appreciation of the testimony of the prosecutrix, her parents, and medical evidence, convicted the accused and imposed sentence.

The High Court, however, reversed the conviction and acquitted the accused, primarily on the grounds of inconsistencies in witness testimonies, alleged improbabilities in the prosecution's case, and delay in lodging the FIR.

Aggrieved, the State preferred the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Court’s Observation

The Court undertook a detailed re-evaluation of the evidence, particularly focusing on the testimony of the prosecutrix, and reiterated settled principles governing the evaluation of evidence in cases of sexual offences.

It held that the testimony of the prosecutrix, if found credible and trustworthy, is sufficient to sustain a conviction and does not require corroboration as a matter of law. It further emphasised that minor inconsistencies or discrepancies in testimony are natural and do not undermine the credibility of the prosecution's case unless they go to the root of the matter.

The Court observed that the High Court had adopted an approach of isolating discrepancies while ignoring the overall consistency and credibility of the evidence. In this regard, it held that “the approach adopted by the High Court is one of attempting to pick holes in a case that otherwise has withstood the test of cross-examination.”

The Court further held that improbabilities relating to peripheral aspects, such as the exact distance travelled or time taken, cannot outweigh clear and credible evidence establishing the occurrence of the offence. It observed that “the Court does not look for mathematical precision” in proving the occurrence of an offence.

Regarding medical evidence, the Court reiterated that such evidence is corroborative in nature, and where it supports the ocular testimony, it strengthens the prosecution's case.

Upon evaluation of the entire material, the Court found that the testimony of the prosecutrix remained consistent on material particulars, was corroborated by other witnesses and medical evidence, and had withstood cross-examination.

Accordingly, the Court held that the acquittal recorded by the High Court was unsustainable.

Before concluding, the Court took serious note of the disclosure of the identity of the victim in the proceedings, despite the statutory prohibition under Section 228A IPC. It observed that “the name of the victim is treated like that of any other witness and is freely used throughout the record", and held that "this must be deprecated in the strongest terms.”

The Court emphasised that before 1983, there was no statutory bar on publishing the name or particulars of a woman against whom a sexual offence was alleged. Court reporting and media coverage, the Court said, could expose survivors to social stigma, ostracism, and lifelong reputational harm.

The 1983 amendments, the Court underscored, “marked the beginning of a victim-centred orientation in Indian criminal law; protections such as in-camera trials, evidentiary presumptions, and anonymity were designed to reduce the barriers and fears that previously discouraged reporting and effective prosecution of sexual offences”.

The Court accordingly directed that a copy of the judgment be circulated to all High Courts to ensure that in all matters dated before the passing of this Court’s judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2019), which has mandated the non-disclosure of the victim’s identity, and still pending, the proscription in Section 228-A IPC is followed strictly.

Conclusion

In the matter at hand, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of acquittal passed by the High Court, and restored the conviction and sentence imposed by the Trial Court. The accused was directed to surrender forthwith to serve the remainder of the sentence.

Cause Title: State of Himachal Pradesh v. Hukum Chand @ Monu (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 290)

Click here to read/download Judgment