The Trial: Dignity, In Camera, and the Victim's Identity

In one line

What happens to a victim inside the courtroom, and the four rules that govern it.

In the wording a student can write in an exam: the trial of a sexual offence is governed by four rules directed at the victim: the inquiry and trial shall be conducted in camera, which State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh held to be a duty rather than a discretion; the identity of the victim may not be disclosed, section 72 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 making it an offence to print or publish the name or any matter which may make known her identity, and section 73 making it an offence to print or publish any matter in relation to such proceedings without the court's permission; the victim is entitled to compensation under section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 and to the protection of the witness protection scheme every State Government must prepare and notify under section 398; and the manner of the trial itself is regulated, by directions on the conduct of counsel and of the court which Aparna Bhat v. State of Madhya Pradesh collected.

Why the trial needs its own rules

Because the ordinary features of a criminal trial operate against this victim in particular.

The trial is public, and the offence is one the victim will be identified by for the rest of her life.

Cross-examination is unrestricted in principle, and the questions that come most naturally to the defence are about her character and her history.

The trial is slow, and she must attend, repeatedly, in the same building as the accused.

And the evidence is her word, so everything depends on her being able to give it.

The four rules below are answers to those four features, and presenting them that way is better than listing provisions.

Rule one: in camera

State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, AIR 1996 SC 1393, (1996) 2 SCC 384, decided on 16 January 1996.

Facts. The prosecutrix, a schoolgirl below sixteen, was abducted and subjected to sexual intercourse by three men without her consent and against her will. The defence attacked her age and her character. The trial court acquitted, and the State appealed.

Held, on the facts. She was abducted and forcibly subjected to intercourse without her consent and against her will, so the question of age paled into insignificance, though on the evidence, including a birth certificate and the parents' explanation of a change of name, she was in fact below sixteen.

Held, on the conduct of the trial. The provision requiring the inquiry into and trial of a rape case to be conducted in camera casts a duty on the court to do so invariably. It is not merely permissive, and courts are obliged to act in furtherance of the intention expressed by the legislature. An in camera trial keeps faith with the self-respect of the victim, and is likely to improve the quality of her evidence, because she will not be hesitant or bashful as she would be in an open court under the gaze of the public. It is also unlawful to print or publish any matter in relation to such proceedings except with the previous permission of the court.