Jharkhand High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed to quash the order dated 21-11-2011, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge-III-cum-Spl. Judge, Dumka, whereby the charges against the petitioner under Sections 228(A)1, 120-B2 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’), Sections 74(1) and 74(3) of Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 (‘the JJ Act’) and Section 23 of Prevention of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (‘POCSO Act’) had been framed, Arun Kumar Rai, J., stated that prima facie WhatsApp news group in the name of ‘Nala News’ wherein message regarding identity of victim and her photograph were sent, would come within the domain of “any form of media” & “audio-visual media”. Thus, the Court stated that no interreference was required in the impugned order and dismissed the present petition.
Background
In the present case, an FIR was instituted on the written report of ASI, who stated that during investigation, he came across the fact that a case was filed under Section 376 of IPC and Section 4 of POCSO Act and the victim, who was just years of age, was brought to a Hospital in Jamatra on 27-10-20128 at 9.30 pm. The victim was admitted and was treated was by two doctors.
The informant further alleged that on 28-10-2018, a local MLA-the petitioner and his supporters visited Hospital to show their sympathy to the victim and her family member and after taking name, address and photograph of victim, it was sent to media and other organization. The informant stated that he got screenshot copy of above said message and photographs, and this act was violative of Sections 74(1) and 74(3) of JJ Act, Section 23 of POCSO Act and Section 228-A of IPC. Thus, the FIR was registered against the petitioner.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court referred to the Black’s Law Dictionary meaning of the word ‘Media’ and ‘Social Media’ and stated that it was transparent the meaning of the media included the means of mass communication and mass media along with the Internet, as social media included all the technological means especially websites and apps.
The Court stated that under revisional jurisdiction, it had to examine the correctness, legality or propriety of the order before them. Since the charge against the petitioner was framed by the Trial Court, the present Court had to consider that whether prima facie case was made out. Further, it was also settled legal proposition that the disclosure of the victim name or disclosing any facts which could lead to the identification of the victim and which should make her identity known to the public at large, in any form i.e. print or publish in print, electronic, social media, etc., was strictly prohibited and was an offence.
The Court noted that it was petitioner’s admitted case that the report/messages and victim’s photographs was forwarded to social media platform. This fact was further corroborated from the witness’ statement who had categorically stated that in 2016, he had started WhatsApp news group named ‘Nala news’, wherein number of representatives of the district, administrative and police officials, intellectual and reporters were added as a member. The witness further stated that the photographs of one teenage girl and connected message was posted in the above said WhatsApp group from the petitioner’s number, through which he knew that the teenage girl was victim of rape, and her name was disclosed by that message. Thus, the Court stated that prima facie it showed the involvement of the petitioner in disclosing the identity including the photographs of the victim over the social media via WhatsApp.
The Court stated that prima facie WhatsApp news group in the name of ‘Nala News’, wherein message regarding identity of victim and her photograph were sent, would come within the domain of “any form of media” & “audio-visual media”. Thus, the Court stated that no interference was required in the impugned order and dismissed the petition with the clarification that the findings recorded by the present Court were only for the purpose of the instant case and the trial would not be prejudiced by any of the findings and observations made by this Court, during the trial.
[Dr. Irfan Ansari v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC OnLine Jhar 3245, decided on 06-09-2024]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioner: Indrajit Sinha, Advocate; Kumar Rahul Kamlesh, Advocate;
For the Respondent: P.C. Sinha, AC to GA-III
Buy Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 HERE
Buy Penal Code, 1860 HERE
1. Corresponding Section 72 of Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (‘BNS’)
2. Corresponding Section 61 of BNS
