Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal. File | Photo Credit: ANI
Additional chief judicial Justice of the Peace Neha Mittal additionally acquitted Bhupender Singh, then public relations officer of DCW.
The prosecution alleged Mr. Singh disclosed the minor rape sufferer’s identify to digital media at Ms. Maliwal’s behest.
According to the FIR, the discover despatched by Ms. Maliwal because the chairperson of DCW, during which she sought to know in regards to the investigation within the rape case, was “intentionally circulated” on a WhatsApp group and proven by a TV channel.
“Prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offence under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, read with Rule 86 of the Juvenile Justice rules by the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt,” the order stated.
The court docket stated neither the discover revealing the identification of the minor sufferer on WhatsApp nor Mr. Singh sharing a duplicate of the discover with a information channel was proved.
While Section 74 of the legislation prohibits any such disclosure to the media, Rule 86 offers with the classification of offences as cognisable or non-cognisable and designated courts.
“Accused persons, namely Swati Maliwal Jaihind and Bhupender Singh, are hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 74, read with rule 86 of the Juvenile Justice Act,” the court docket stated.
The order referred to the testimony of witnesses and underlined “complete failure” on the a part of the prosecution or complainant to show the fees.
On the allegations that the discover revealing the minor’s identify was displayed by a information channel on July 25, 2016, the court docket famous when the footage of the information merchandise was seen neither such a discover was seen, nor did the anchor disclose her identify.
“Thus, the allegations of the prosecution to this extent appear to be baseless and unfounded,” the court docket held.
It additionally rejected the prosecution’s argument that Ms. Maliwal might be convicted primarily based on the discover she despatched to the SHO, revealing the minor’s identify.
“It does not appeal to common sense to hold accused 1 (Maliwal) criminally liable for disclosing the name of the minor victim to SHO of Burari police station, who otherwise is in knowledge of all her details, being the one responsible for filing the chargesheet in the FIR,” the court docket stated.
The court docket within the meantime referred to the legislative intent behind the enactment of Section 74 JJ of the act, saying the intention was “to avoid scrutiny of the proceedings in which a juvenile is tried to insulate and protect the juvenile from stigma and emotional trauma”.
“Some measures like restricted access to records of trials, sealing and destruction of records of prosecution of juvenile delinquents are finding acceptance among legislatures across the world. The courts have been anonymising trials of children in conflict with the law to protect their identities,” it stated.
Delhi Police booked Ms. Maliwal in 2016 and stated there was a blatant violation of provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, which defend the identification of a minor sufferer of sexual offence.
The minor lady succumbed to her accidents on July 23, 2016, at a hospital after being sexually assaulted by her neighbour who allegedly compelled a corrosive substance down her throat and broken her inside organs.
On account of the presence of the consent of the sufferer’s mother and father to reveal her identify, Section 228A (Prohibition on disclosure of identification of the sufferer) of the IPC was dropped, and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act was added within the case.
Published – August 14, 2025 08:05 am IST
Leave a Comment