HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT QUASHES FIR, UPHOLDS ACCUSED'S RIGHT TO BE FORGOTTEN AFTER ACQUITTAL
Category: JUDGEMENT REVIEW
「 ✦ Content ✦ 」
BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE:
The respondent (X) was acquitted of charges under Section 363 (kidnapping), Section 366 (kidnapping, abducting or abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage), Section 376 (rape) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 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 prosecution argued that it was on 14. 10. 2017, when the alleged incident happened hence they arrested respondent and charged him with the offenses.
On 15. 01. 2017, the respondent called the prosecutrix (victim) on telephone and demanded her to come and meet him for marriage solemnization stating that he will commit suicide if she turned down his offer. The prosecutrix met the respondent; the respondent subsequently picked up the prosecutrix in his father’s car. The respondent and the prosecutrix stayed together from 15. 10. 2017 to 25. 10. 2017 when the accused person is said to have engaged the prosecutrix in sexual intercourse.
The incident happened on 27. 10. 2017 when the respondent left the prosecutrix at a bus stand in Bilaspur and escaped without the prosecutrix finding the means to take a bus back to Manali. The State of Himachal Pradesh moved to the High court seeking special leave to appeal against the respondent’s acquittal. The main question that arose entailed the test of whether the respondent deserved a right to be forgotten because of his acquittal of the charges.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Article – 21: Protection of Life and Personal Liberty.
INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860
Section – 363: Kidnapping.Â
Section – 366: Kidnapping, abducting or abducting or inducing woman to compel her marriage. Section – 376: Rape.
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT, 2012
Section – 6: Punishment for aggravated penetrative sexual assault.
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989
Section – 3(2)(v): commits any offence under the IPC punishable with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more against a person or property, shall be punishable with imprisonment for life and with fine.
ISSUE RAISED:
Whether the respondent's (X) right to be forgotten should be upheld, given that he was acquitted of the charges. This issue was central to the State's application to quash the FIR and the criminal proceedings ?
CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT:
The counsel for the appellant submitted that the State of Himachal Pradesh moved to this court seeking leave to appeal the acquittal of the respondent X. The main argument given by the state was that the respondent cannot be allowed right to be forgotten especially when he was acquitted of serious charges. The State pointed out that the respondent was charged for the offences outlined under Section 363 Section 366 and Section 376 of the IPC,1860, charge framed under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The State argued that the respondent could not invoke the law of the right to be forgotten in this case and that others have a right in this democracy to know such serious allegations against the respondent especially if the victim is a vulnerable person and the offenses committed are grave.
CONTENTION OF THE RESPONDENT:
The counsel for the respondent X pointed out that he was never prosecuted for the alleged crimes and more so, was acquitted of all charges thus, his right to be forgotten should be honored. The counsel further stated that the continued file availability of information on the case in records violated his fundamental rights such as his right of privacy. The respondent pointed out that the acquittal is the right decision and should be considered as clearing him of all wrong doings and any remaining records or information on the case should be deleted for the public domain to enable the respondent to live a normal life without stain on his reputation.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT:
The High Court of Himachal Pradesh has thoroughly analyzed the given case and the judgment of this Court is well articulated backed up by sound reasons. The High Court pointed out that the right to be forgotten and the right to be left alone are the prominent features of the right to privacy that is incorporated under Article 21 of the Indian constitution. The court observed that an accused person who is either acquitted, discharged or cleared through the legal process should not be made to face the “sword of his being accused for the rest of his life”.
The judges observed that stigmatization of such persons whose cases are made public has adverse social and psychological impacts as they are exclude from society once their cases go viral despite being acquitted or set free through due legal process. Balancing the claims of two sides the High Court made the conclusion that the respondent’s right to be forgotten has to be extended and realized in this case. To ensure that the occurrence of the case is no longer public, the court then ordered that the name of the accused (X) and the victim also be concealed from the list of records of the lower court and the High Court.
By asserting the principle of confidentiality of acquitted persons in High Court’s judgment, the Court acknowledges the need to uphold the privacy and dignity of people who have been acquitted regardless of the gravity of the allegations levelled against them. This case has got significant implications with regards to the confirmation of the right to be forgotten by the court in favor of respondent. The court’s ruling imposes particular pressure on the public’s entitlement to the right to know and fundamental rights of the accused.
OLQ is a Pan-India basis law firm connecting legal expertise nationwide
WRITTEN BY: ABHISHEK S CHAUHAN
GUIDED BY: ADVOCATE ANIK
