Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY, M.R. SHAH, JJ.
Ms. X – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and Others – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1352 of 2019
Decided On : 20-01-2021
Constitution of India – Article 32 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 228-A – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 357-A – Rehabilitation of victim of rape – Petitioner-victim is a member of scheduled tribe – Identity of petitioner was disclosed by Media which is obstructing her in getting accommodation even on rent – She, with three children, has no means of survival and she is not able to give education to her children – Petitioner being a rape victim deserves treatment as rape victim by all authorities – A rape victim suffers not only a mental trauma but also discrimination from society – Petitioner has also raised grievance regarding her identity which has been disclosed by Media – Law with regard to Section 228A is well established and all including media, both print and electronic have to follow the law – There is a statutory scheme already enforced in State of Jharkhand framed under Section 357A of Cr.P.C. which provides procedure for grant of compensation – Petitioner had already made application to seek compensation under the Scheme and payment of compensation has already been made – There are various Central as well as State Schemes for providing residential accommodation to persons living below poverty line and other deserving cases – Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi may consider case of petitioner for allotment of any housing accommodation under Prime Minister Awas Yojna or any other Scheme of Centre or State – Education upto age of 14 years in State of Jharkhand is free which is provided by State – Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi directed to take measure to ensure that minor children of petitioner are provided free education in any of Government Institutions in District Ranchi where petitioner is residing till they attain age of 14 years – Senior Superintendent of Police, Ranchi and other competent authority shall review Police security provided to petitioner from time to time and take such measures as deem fit and proper – District Legal Services Authority, Ranchi on representation made by petitioner shall render legal services to petitioner as may be deemed fit to safeguard interest of petitioner. (Paras 12, 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26 and 27)
Facts of the Case:
Present writ petition has been filed by a rape victim invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of Constitution. Petitioner’s case in the writ petition is that she being the 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 petitioner and her children’s life.
Findings of Court:
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 accommodation under Prime Minister Awas Yojna or any other Scheme of the Centre or the State.
Result : Writ Petition disposed of with directions.
JUDGMENT :
ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by a rape victim invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 of the Constitution.
2. This Court entertained the writ petition and while issuing notice 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.
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 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.
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 09.08.2019 which was sent by the landlord of the petitioner asking the petitioner to vaca
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
