Latest news with #Maliwal
The Hindu
3 days ago
- The Hindu
Delhi court acquits Swati Maliwal accused of revealing rape victim's name
A Delhi court on Wednesday (August 14, 2025) acquitted MP and former chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women (DCW), Swati Maliwal, accused of allegedly disclosing the identity of a 14-year-old rape victim who succumbed to injuries. Additional chief judicial magistrate Neha Mittal also acquitted Bhupender Singh, then public relations officer of DCW. The prosecution alleged Mr. Singh disclosed the minor rape victim's name to electronic media at Ms. Maliwal's behest. According to the FIR, the notice sent by Ms. Maliwal as the chairperson of DCW, in which she sought to know about the investigation in the rape case, was "intentionally circulated" on a WhatsApp group and shown by a TV channel. "Prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offence under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, read with Rule 86 of the Juvenile Justice rules by the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt," the order said. The court said neither the notice revealing the identity of the minor victim on WhatsApp nor Mr. Singh sharing a copy of the notice with a news channel was proved. While Section 74 of the law prohibits any such disclosure to the media, Rule 86 deals with the classification of offences as cognisable or non-cognisable and designated courts. "Accused persons, namely Swati Maliwal Jaihind and Bhupender Singh, are hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 74, read with rule 86 of the Juvenile Justice Act," the court said. The order referred to the testimony of witnesses and underlined "complete failure" on the part of the prosecution or complainant to prove the charges. On the allegations that the notice revealing the minor's name was displayed by a news channel on July 25, 2016, the court noted when the footage of the news item was viewed neither such a notice was seen, nor did the anchor disclose her name. "Thus, the allegations of the prosecution to this extent appear to be baseless and unfounded," the court held. It also rejected the prosecution's argument that Ms. Maliwal could be convicted based on the notice she sent to the SHO, revealing the minor's name. "It does not appeal to common sense to hold accused 1 (Maliwal) criminally liable for disclosing the name of the minor victim to SHO of Burari police station, who otherwise is in knowledge of all her details, being the one responsible for filing the chargesheet in the FIR," the court said. The court in the meantime referred to the legislative intent behind the enactment of Section 74 JJ of the act, saying the aim was "to avoid scrutiny of the proceedings in which a juvenile is tried to insulate and protect the juvenile from stigma and emotional trauma". "Some measures like restricted access to records of trials, sealing and destruction of records of prosecution of juvenile delinquents are finding acceptance among legislatures across the world. The courts have been anonymising trials of children in conflict with the law to protect their identities," it said. Delhi Police booked Ms. Maliwal in 2016 and said there was a blatant violation of provisions of the Juvenile Justice Act, which protect the identity of a minor victim of sexual offence. The minor girl succumbed to her injuries on July 23, 2016, at a hospital after being sexually assaulted by her neighbour who allegedly forced a corrosive substance down her throat and damaged her internal organs. On account of the presence of the consent of the victim's parents to disclose her name, Section 228A (Prohibition on disclosure of identity of the victim) of the IPC was dropped, and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act was added in the case.
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Court acquits Swati Maliwal, Bhupender Singh in minor survivor's identity disclosure case
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Wednesday acquitted Rajya Sabha MP and former Delhi Commission for Women (DCW) chairperson Swati Maliwal, along with Bhupender Singh, the then public relations officer of DCW, in a case alleging disclosure of the identity of a 14-year-old sexual assault survivor in 2014, who later died in 2016 due to injuries. Additional chief judicial magistrate Neha Mittal observed that courts have consistently "anonymised" trials involving children to protect their identities. The magistrate stated, "The prosecution failed to prove the commission of the offence under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, read with Rule 86 of the Juvenile Justice Rules by the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. " The case stemmed from a 2016 FIR filed by Delhi Police, accusing Maliwal and Singh of violating the Juvenile Justice Act by allegedly revealing the identity of the sexual assault survivor through a notice circulated in print, electronic media, and WhatsApp groups. Singh was specifically accused of preparing and circulating the notice. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi | Gold Rates Today in Delhi | Silver Rates Today in Delhi Maliwal, as DCW chief, had taken cognisance of the case involving a neighbour who sexually assaulted the minor and allegedly forced a corrosive substance down her throat, causing severe internal injuries. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Learn More - How Watching Videos Can Boost Your Income TheDaddest Undo On account of the presence of the consent of the survivor's parents to disclose her name, Section 228A (Prohibition on disclosure of identity of the survivor) of the IPC was dropped, and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act was added to the case. The prosecution claimed Singh sent the notice revealing the survivor's identity to a WhatsApp group named 'DCW Media' and that the notice was subsequently shown on TV channels. However, the court found no proof that Singh circulated the notice via WhatsApp or shared it with media outlets. Further, footage of the TV broadcast did not reveal the survivor's name or identity. The court noted that the sending of the notice revealing the identity of the minor survivor on WhatsApp by Singh was not proved, nor did the prosecution establish that he shared a copy of the notice with a news channel. The ACJM observed, "Court holds the accused persons not guilty of the commission of said offence. Accused persons, namely Swati Maliwal Jaihind and Bhupender Singh, are hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 74, read with rule 86 of the Juvenile Justice Act. " The court rejected the prosecution's argument that Maliwal could be convicted based on the notice that she sent to the SHO, where the name of the minor was revealed. It said that the police official was in knowledge of all her details, being the one responsible for filing the chargesheet in the FIR. While acquitting the duo, the court, outlining the vulnerability of a child, pointed out that the aim of the legislatures and the endeavour of the courts is to insulate the child against the cruel vagaries of life which it cannot comprehend and lacks capacity to defend against. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Hindustan Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court acquits Maliwal in rape victim disclosure case
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.'
NDTV
3 days ago
- Politics
- NDTV
Delhi Court Acquits Swati Maliwal In Case Of Revealing Rape Victim's Name
New Delhi: A Delhi court on Wednesday acquitted MP and former chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women (DCW), Swati Maliwal, accused of allegedly disclosing the identity of a 14-year-old rape victim who succumbed to injuries. Additional chief judicial magistrate Neha Mittal also acquitted Bhupender Singh, then public relations officer of DCW. The prosecution alleged Singh disclosed the minor rape victim's name to electronic media at Maliwal's behest. According to the FIR, the notice sent by Maliwal as the chairperson of DCW, in which she sought to know about the investigation in the rape case, was "intentionally circulated" on a WhatsApp group and shown by a TV channel. "Prosecution has failed to prove the commission of offence under Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, read with Rule 86 of the Juvenile Justice rules by the accused persons beyond a reasonable doubt," the order said. The court said neither the notice revealing the identity of the minor victim on WhatsApp nor Singh sharing a copy of the notice with a news channel was proved. While Section 74 of the law prohibits any such disclosure to the media, Rule 86 deals with the classification of offences as cognisable or non-cognisable and designated courts. "Accused persons, namely Swati Maliwal Jaihind and Bhupender Singh, are hereby acquitted of the offence under Section 74, read with rule 86 of the Juvenile Justice Act," the court said. The order referred to the testimony of witnesses and underlined "complete failure" on the part of prosecution or complainant to prove the charges. On the allegations that the notice revealing the minor's name was displayed by a news channel on July 25, 2016, the court noted when the footage of the news item was viewed neither such a notice was seen, nor did the anchor disclose her name. "Thus, the allegations of the prosecution to this extent appear to be baseless and unfounded," the court held. It also rejected the prosecution's argument that Maliwal could be convicted based on the notice she sent to the SHO, revealing the minor's name. "It does not appeal to common sense to hold accused 1 (Maliwal) criminally liable for disclosing the name of the minor victim to SHO of Burari police station, who otherwise is in knowledge of all her details, being the one responsible for filing the chargesheet in the FIR," the court said. The court in the meantime referred to the legislative intent behind the enactment of Section 74 JJ of the act, saying the aim was "to avoid scrutiny of the proceedings in which a juvenile is tried to insulate and protect the juvenile from stigma and emotional trauma". "Some measures like restricted access to records of trials, sealing and destruction of records of prosecution of juvenile delinquents are finding acceptance among legislatures across the world. The courts have been anonymising trials of children in conflict with the law to protect their identities," it said. Delhi Police booked Maliwal in 2016 and said there was a blatant violation of provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, which protect the identity of a minor victim of sexual offence. The minor girl succumbed to her injuries on July 23, 2016, at a hospital after being sexually assaulted by her neighbour who allegedly forced a corrosive substance down her throat and damaged her internal organs. On account of the presence of the consent of the victim's parents to disclose her name, Section 228A (Prohibition on disclosure of identity of the victim) of the IPC was dropped, and Section 74 of the Juvenile Justice Act was added in the case. (Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
Deccan Herald
4 days ago
- Deccan Herald
Delhi court acquits Swati Maliwal accused of revealing rape victim's name
Delhi Police booked Maliwal in 2016 when she was the chairperson of Delhi Commission for Women, and said there was a blatant violation of provisions of Juvenile Justice Act, which protect the identity of a minor victim of sexual offence.
