By Sunidhi Gupta. 

In a significant ruling, the Jharkhand High Court addressed crucial issues surrounding the disclosure of a sexual assault victim’s identity and the framing of charges in a criminal case. On October 27, 2018, a four-year-old girl was allegedly raped, leading to the registration of an FIR under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 4 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. The victim was admitted to Sadar Hospital, Jamtara for treatment. The next day, Dr. Irfan Ansari, the local MLA, visited the hospital with his supporters to express sympathy for the victim and her family. During this visit, it was alleged that photographs were taken and information about the victim, including her name and address, was sent to media outlets and circulated on social media. 

Following these events, an FIR (Jamtara P.S. Case No. 175/18) was registered against Dr. Ansari under Sections 228A and 120B of the IPC, Section 74(1)(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015, and Section 23 of the POCSO Act, 2012. After investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Tarkeshwar Rai, Dr. Ansari’s secretary, but Dr. Ansari was not initially sent for trial due to lack of evidence. However, the Magistrate took cognizance of the offences against both Tarkeshwar Rai and Dr. Ansari. Dr. Ansari filed a petition for discharge under Section 227 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was dismissed by the trial court. Subsequently, charges were framed against Dr. Ansari, leading to the present revision petition before the Jharkhand High Court. 

The Jharkhand High Court, after careful consideration, dismissed Dr. Ansari’s revision petition and upheld the framing of charges against him. The court found that there was sufficient material to establish a prima facie case against Dr. Ansari under Section 228A of the IPC, Section 23 of the POCSO Act, and Section 74(1)(3) of the Juvenile Justice Act. The court noted that sending the victim’s name, address, and photographs via WhatsApp to a news group constituted disclosure of the victim’s identity, which is prohibited by law. The court held that criminal liability is not transferable, and the fact that Dr. Ansari’s secretary claimed responsibility for sending the messages did not absolve Dr. Ansari at this stage of the proceedings. The High Court affirmed that the trial court had correctly exercised its jurisdiction in framing charges against Dr. Ansari based on the available evidence. 

It is imperative that the judgment also clarifies that social media platforms like WhatsApp fall within the ambit of “any form of media” under relevant laws, emphasizing the need for caution when sharing information on such platforms. An interesting observation is the court’s stance on criminal liability. By stating that criminal liability is not transferable, the court has set a precedent that public figures cannot escape responsibility by shifting blame to their subordinates. 

[Case Title: Dr. Irfan Ansari v. The State of Jharkhand, Citation: Cr. Revision No. 1254 of 2022] 

Click here to read/download the judgment