Shimla, July 17
In a notable verdict delivered on July 11, 2024, by the Division Bench comprising Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan and Justice Sushil Kukreja, the Himachal Pradesh High Court emphasized the privacy rights of an accused who later married the victim. This case, registered under Cr.M.P(M) No. 1234 of 2024, highlighted the balance between the right to privacy and the criminal justice system, fundamentally redefining the scope of prosecution and societal treatment of the accused post-acquittal.
The prosecution had accused the respondent of offenses under Sections 363, 366, 376 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The State sought to challenge the acquittal, despite the fact that the respondent had married the victim and they had a child together.
The court underscored several significant observations. It cited the Supreme Court’s precedent, highlighting the “double presumption of innocence” for the acquitted, reinforcing that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence. Additionally, the court noted that the victim and the respondent were married with a child. Disturbing this family setup by continued prosecution was deemed unwarranted and harmful to their daughter’s well-being.
Emphasizing the evolving jurisprudence on privacy, the bench ruled that the respondent’s identity must be masked to prevent future prejudice. This aligns with the right to be forgotten, an integral aspect of the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. The judgment stressed that society and the judicial system should not perpetuate the stigma against an individual who has been acquitted and has faced due process. This perspective ensures the reintegration of the accused into society without enduring the perpetual shadow of past accusations.
The court referred to multiple landmark cases, including Muralidhar alias Gidda & another vs. State of Karnataka and K. Dhandapani vs. The State by the Inspector of Police, to substantiate the principles governing the appellate review of acquittals and the right to live with dignity.
The judgment mandates masking the identities of both the respondent and the prosecutrix in digital records, thereby affirming their right to privacy and dignity.
This decision marks a significant step in recognizing and protecting the rights of the accused post-acquittal, ensuring that legal and societal frameworks support the reformation and rehabilitation of individuals.
Empower Independent Journalism – Join Us Today!
Dear Reader,
We’re committed to unbiased, in-depth journalism that uncovers truth and gives voice to the unheard. To sustain our mission, we need your help. Your contribution, no matter the size, fuels our research, reporting, and impact.
Stand with us in preserving independent journalism’s integrity and transparency. Support free press, diverse perspectives, and informed democracy.
Click [here] to join and be part of this vital endeavour.
Thank you for valuing independent journalism.
Warmly,
Vishal Sarin, Editor
