JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Dhar, J.

1. The State has sought leave to file appeal against the judgment dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Bhaderwah (hereinafter referred to as "the trial Court") in File No. 07/Sessions Challan titled State v. Mohd. Imran Khan, whereby the respondent herein has been acquitted of the charge for offence under Section 376 RPC.

2. Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 13.12.2014, the prosecutrix went missing and in this regard a complaint was lodged before the police by the maternal grandfather of the prosecutrix. It was found that the prosecutrix had been kidnapped and taken away by the respondent in a car. FIR No. 196/2014 for offences under Section 366 RPC was registered and investigation was set into motion. On 15.12.2014, the prosecutrix was recovered from the custody of the respondent/accused. The statement of the prosecutrix under Section 164-A Cr.P.C. was recorded. After investigation of the case, it was found that the prosecutrix, after being kidnapped, was raped by the respondent and accordingly, charge-sheet for offences under Sections 363/376 RPC was laid before the trial Court.

3. Charge for offence under Section 376 RPC was framed against the accused and he was put to trial. After trial of the case and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the offence against the accused/respondent is not established and he was acquitted of the charge vide the impugned judgment.

4. We have heard Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG and perused the record.

5. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner-State that the prosecutrix, in the instant case, was minor at the time of the occurrence and she had in her statement recorded before the Court fully supported the prosecution case. According to the learned counsel, the learned trial Court has disbelieved the statement of the prosecutrix on technicalities and for flimsy reasons.

6. Keeping in view the contentions raised by the learned AAG, a prima facie case for grant of leave to file appeal is made out. Accordingly, the application is allowed and the leave to appeal against the impugned judgment is granted in favour of the petitioner.

7. Main appeal be diarized. The same is admitted to hearing.

8. Post admission notice be issued to the respondent.

9. The Registry shall prepare the paper-book and process the appeal for hearing in due course.

10. Before parting with the order, it is necessary to comment on certain things, which we have noticed from a perusal of the impugned judgment. The learned trial Judge has mentioned the name of the prosecutrix at several places in the said judgment, which is impermissible in law.

11. Section 228A of IPC prohibits disclosure of identity of the victim of certain offences, which includes offence under Section 376 IPC. In pari materia to the aforesaid provision is Section 228A of the J & K Ranbir Penal Code, which was applicable to the case at hand at the relevant time.

12. Although, prohibition contained in Section 228A may not strictly apply to the judgment of a Court, yet the Courts must avoid disclosing the name(s) of prosecutrix in their orders and judgments, so as to avoid embarrassment and humiliation to a victim of rape. Rape is not merely a physical assault but it is destruction of the personality of the victim. Therefore, Courts have to act responsibly and with sensitivity while dealing with the cases of rape, particularly, while referring to the prosecutrix.

13. This issue has been a matter of discussion before the Supreme Court and various High Courts of the country in a number of cases. In State of Punjab v. Gurmeet Singh, (1996) 2 SCC 384, the Supreme Court, while emphasizing that victims of sexual abuse or assault need to be treated with sensitivity during investigation and trial and that trial of rape cases should be generally held in camera, made the following observations:

"It would enable the victim of crime to be a little comfortable