NEW DELHI: Supreme Court has rebuked trial and high courts for disclosing the identity of rape survivors in their orders and directed them to ensure that names of survivors and family members are not mentioned in court records.A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and N K Singh expressed concern that despite statutory safeguards and repeated directions from SC, such lapses persist. The court made the observation while convicting a rape accused, noting that the name of the minor survivor was mentioned in lower court orders.“The legislature had as far back as 1983 introduced a provision into IPC seeking to protect the identity of the victim of the offence under Section 376 IPC. The amendment was made apparently to address a specific mischief that emerged starkly from the way sexual offence cases were handled: the public disclosure of a survivor’s identity.”Strictly follow rule on not naming survivor: SCSC said : “Clearly, the intent of this Section has been given a miss in these proceedings. The name of the survivor is treated like that of any other witness and is freely used throughout the record. This must be deprecated in the strongest terms. In fact, this court has noticed earlier also that the mandate of this provision is not being followed”.The court said that a copy of this judgment be sent to all high courts to ensure strict compliance with the apex court’s order.“This has been the long-standing position in law but it has not been followed. The primary reason there amongst, one supposes, is the general indifference of the courts below and possibly even the lack of awareness of the deep stigma that follows such offences,” the Supreme Court said.Supreme Court, while convicting the accused and setting aside the acquittal order of Uttarakhand high court, said courts must not give undue importance to minor discrepancies.“A truthful witness may make honest mistakes or omit immaterial details, and such normal variation should not result in wholesale rejection of evidence. However, when omissions or contradictions relate to material facts that form the foundation of the prosecution’s version, they assume significance and may create reasonable doubt….We may observe that the approach adopted by the high court is one of attempting to pick holes in a case that otherwise has withstood the test of cross-examination. The prosecutrix has positively identified the respondentaccused and has unequivocally stated that it was he who forced himself upon her,” it said.