Delhi court acquits Maliwal in rape victim disclosure case

In their FIR, the Delhi Police charged Swati Maliwal with violating provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act for revealing the identity of a sexual assault victim

NEW DELHI

Throughout the trial, Maliwal’s counsel had argued that the act was done in good faith. (Representative photo/Shutterstock)

A Delhi court on Wednesday acquitted former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) chief and Rajya Sabha MP Swati Maliwal and her media advisor at the time, Bhupinder Singh, in a 2016 case accusing them of disclosing the name of a 14-year-old rape victim, who later succumbed to her injuries.

The acquittal order was passed by additional chief judicial magistrate Neha Mittal.

The court said that the prosecution failed to prove the commission of offences under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act, read with rule 86 of JJ Rules, by the accused beyond reasonable doubt as neither the notice sent on WhatsApp by Singh revealed the identity of the minor victim nor was the allegation of sharing of a copy of the notice with a news channel could be proved.

In their FIR, the Delhi Police charged the two of them with violating provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act for revealing the identity of a sexual assault victim by circulating a notice in electronic media. Singh was accused of preparing the notices and forwarding them to media channels through the DCW WhatsApp group.

The victim died in a hospital after being sexually assaulted by her neighbour, who allegedly forced a corrosive substance down her throat, damaging her internal organs. Maliwal had circulated a notice addressed to the deputy commissioner of police (North) and the SHO of Burari Police Station in the media, seeking an update in the probe.

The FIR said the notice was “intentionally circulated” on various WhatsApp groups and shown by the television channel Times Now.

Maliwal and Singh were booked under Section 74, read with Section 86 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015. Police had later dropped charges under IPC Section 228A (prohibition on disclosure of identity of the victim) after the victim’s parents stated that they had given their consent to disclose their child’s name.

The court, in its judgment, noted that Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act prohibits identification in a newspaper, magazine or audio-visual media.

The court said, “The sending of notice by accused No.1 to SHO PS Burari seeking explanation regarding the lapses in the investigation is not a report in any newspaper, magazine or news-sheet or other form of communication”.

On the aspect of the copy of the notice revealing the name of the victim being sent to the news channel, the court observed, “There is nothing to show in the chargesheet that the accused persons sent the notice to Times Now…further, the anchor of the programme has not revealed the name of the minor victim in the entire programme…the allegations are baseless and unfounded.”