Sec 164 CrPC A rape victim statement must not be disclosed to any person, including the accused, until the indictment is filed: Supreme Court

Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that a rape victim statement under Section 164 of the CCP should not be disclosed to anyone, including the accused, until the indictment is filed.

The bench of Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi deals with the motion for contempt aims to bring to light the conduct of the alleged critics who deliberately violated the mandatory instructions issued by the Court.

In this case, the instructions which are highlighted are those which were issued in the decision rendered in State of Karnataka by Nonavinakere Police against Shivanna aka Tarkari Shivanna.

On a similar question, the question was again dealt with by this Court in A v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another in which, after referring to the decision of this Court in Shivanna alias Tarkari Shivanna (supra), it was observed thus:

“19. Thus, simply because the indictment was filed at the time the High Court made the order [Chinmayanand v. State of U.P., 2019 SCC OnLine All 6594] in this case, did not entitle Defendant 2 to a copy of the statement under Article 164 CrPC.

21. The right to receive a copy of such a statement will only exist after knowledge and at the stage envisaged by articles 207 and 208 CrPC and not before. Respondent 2’s application was therefore rightly dismissed by the Extra Sessions Judge and the order so made called for no interference from the High Court. »

It was alleged by the petitioner for contempt that in violation of the instructions issued by the Court in the above-mentioned decisions, a copy of the statement of the petitioner’s daughter registered under article 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, was requested and provided to the accused. in the matter.

Join LAW TREND WhatsAPP group for legal news updates – Click to subscribe

Ms. Tanya Agarwal, counsel for the petitioner, argued that criminal practice rules developed by various high courts must include and incorporate provisions consistent with the law declared by the Court in Shivanna aka Tarkari Shivanna and in A vs Uttar Pradesh State and another.

The bench observed that in theory what is projected in the motion for contempt is entirely correct, that is, despite the authoritative statements and directions issued by this Court, the copy was requested and provided to the accused. Moreover, the copy of the declaration under article 164 of the Cr.PC was mentioned extensively in the procedure before the Court. It is quite regrettable that the Court concerned did not find the violation of the instructions issued by this Court either.

Supreme Court said that “we suggest to each High Court that appropriate modifications/amendments be made to the Rules of Criminal Practice/Trial by incorporating provisions in accordance with the directions issued by the Court in decisions in Shivanna aka Tarkari Shivanna and A vs Uttar Pradesh State and another.

Based on the foregoing, the bench denied the motion.

Case title: Eega Soumya vs. Mr. Mahender Reddy & Ors.

Bench: Chief Justice Uday Umesh Lalit and Justice Bela M. Trivedi

Case no: 2022 CONTEMPT (C) NO. 555 PETITION

Get instant legal updates on mobile – Download the Law Trend app now