Kiran Raj

The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ordered the immediate redaction of the prosecutrix’s name from legal documents in an ongoing criminal appeal, citing established legal principles that protect the identity of victims in sexual offense cases. The court directed the Registrar Judicial to ensure compliance and instructed authorities involved in such cases to adhere to Supreme Court guidelines regarding confidentiality.

The case was heard by Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Puneet Gupta. The court stated, “The office is requested to forthwith redact the name of the prosecutrix from the aforementioned pages and make necessary changes to the digital copy of the court also.” The court further emphasized the responsibility of police, forensic science laboratories, and medical professionals to avoid disclosing the identity of victims in cases related to Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act.

Also Read: 'Instagram Friendship Led to Consensual Relationship’: SC Quashes Rape Case

The appellant, Fazil Saleem Bhat, had filed a criminal appeal against the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir through Police Station Ram Munshi Bagh. The case pertains to offenses under Section 376 of the IPC, which deals with sexual offenses. During the course of proceedings, the counsel representing the Union Territory pointed out that certain pages in the appeal memo contained the prosecutrix’s name, which is prohibited by law.

The court recorded that the prosecutrix’s identity had been disclosed in several documents annexed to the charge sheet. The specific pages identified for redaction included pages 57, 63, 69, 79, 97, and 109. The court stated, “The pages which have been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents are page Nos. 57, 63, 69, 79, 97, & 109 of the appeal Memo which are documents relied upon in the charge sheet whose translations have been placed along with original which has disclosed the name of the prosecutrix.”

Additionally, the court permitted the counsel for the Union Territory to provide a list of any other pages that may contain the prosecutrix’s name and directed that those be redacted as well.

The court concurred with the submissions of the respondent’s counsel and reaffirmed the legal principle that the identity of victims in cases involving sexual offenses must be protected. The judgment stated, “This Court is in agreement with the submission put forth by learned counsel appearing for the official respondents.”

The court cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vipul Saxena and Others v. Union of India & Others [(2019) 2 SCC 703], emphasizing the importance of maintaining confidentiality in such cases. It directed the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir to sensitize all agencies involved in the investigation process to follow these guidelines. The court stated, “As per the directions given by the Supreme Court in case titled ‘Vipul Saxena and Others v. Union of India & Others’ reported as (2019) 2 SCC 703, the Union Territory of J&K shall sensitize all organs which are involved in the investigating process with regard to the guidelines cited in the aforementioned judgment of the Supreme Court.”

Furthermore, the court laid down specific instructions for state authorities, stating, “In cases under Section 376 or POCSO related offenses, the authorities of the State which means the Police, the FSL and the Doctors examining the prosecutrix are to be made aware that the name of the prosecutrix is not to be given and the parentage of the prosecutrix be shown only without prosecutrix’s address.”

Also Read: 'Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt': Kerala High Court set aside Conviction, Citing Contradictory Testimonies and Lack of Corroborative Evidence

The court issued directives to ensure compliance with the legal requirements regarding confidentiality. It ordered that the prosecutrix’s name be redacted from both the physical case file and the digital copy maintained by the court. The court instructed the Registry to undertake this process immediately and stated, “The office shall also take into account such other additional pages as given to it by the learned counsel for the Union Territory in addition to the pages already mentioned hereinabove and if the name of the prosecutrix is mentioned in those pages, redact the same from the physical file and also from the digital file.”

The court further instructed that a copy of its order be served to the Registrar Judicial, Srinagar, to ensure compliance. The case has been scheduled for the next hearing on March 17, 2025, after confirmation that the redaction process has been completed. The order recorded, “List this appeal on 17.03.2025 after the directions for redacting of the pages have been complied with by the Registry.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For appellant:  Syed Faisal Qadri Sr Adv, Bhat Shafi, Advocate.

For Respondents: Rahella Khan, Assisting Counsel.

Case Title: F v. Union Territory through Police Station Ram Munshi Bagh and Others
Case Number: CrlA(D) 11/2025, CrlM(208/2025)
Bench: Justice Atul Sreedharan, Justice Puneet Gupta

[Read/Download order]