Back
(BEFORE ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ,.)
OM PRAKASH - Appellant;
Versus
STATE OF U.P- Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 2006,
decided on May 11,2006
Indian Penal Code, 1869-Section 228A - Disclosure of identity of the victim of rape etc.-The restriction imposed regarding printing or publishing the name or any matter which may make known the identity of the victim does not relate to the printing or publication of H.C. or S.C. judgment-However, keeping in view the social object of printing social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of sexual offence, the name of the victim should not be indicated in the judgments either of Supreme Court, High Court or lower Court-Appeal disposed of. (Para 3)
2004(1) SCC 475, 1996(2) SCC 384, 1990(1) SCC 550 - Referred to.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a conviction for the offence of rape under Section 376(2)(e) of the Indian Penal Code, with a specific focus on whether the accused knew the victim was pregnant (!) (!) .
The victim's evidence is considered credible and does not require corroboration, as victims of sexual offences are not treated as accomplices (!) (!) .
The court emphasizes the importance of examining the broader probabilities of the case rather than minor discrepancies in the victim's statement, especially in cases of sexual assault (!) (!) .
The restriction on disclosing the identity of the victim applies to judgments across courts, including the Supreme Court and High Courts, to prevent social victimization or ostracism (!) .
The prosecution must establish, with positive evidence, that the accused knew the victim was pregnant to invoke the enhanced punishment under Section 376(2)(e). Mere possibility or inference of knowledge is insufficient (!) (!) .
The evidence in this case did not conclusively prove that the accused knew of the victim's pregnancy; therefore, the court could not uphold the application of Section 376(2)(e) (!) (!) .
The original sentence of 10 years was reduced to 7 years, reflecting the court's finding that the prosecution failed to establish the accused’s knowledge of the victim’s pregnancy (!) .
The court discusses the importance of sensitivity and careful evaluation of evidence in sexual offence cases, recognizing the victim's position as a victim rather than an accomplice (!) (!) .
The case underscores that the victim's testimony alone can be sufficient for conviction if it inspires confidence and is consistent with the broader evidence, without requiring corroboration (!) (!) .
The legal provisions regarding the disclosure of the victim's identity are clarified, emphasizing that judgments should avoid naming victims to protect their social dignity (!) .
Please let me know if you need further elaboration or assistance with specific legal aspects.
Judgment
ARUIT PASAYAT, J.-
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant calls in question legality of the judgment rendered by a f learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench upholding the appellant's conviction for offence punishable under Section 376(2)(e) of the Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC") as recorded by learned VIth Additional Sessions Judge, Hardoi and the sentence of 10 years' imprisonment as awarded.
3. We do not propose to mention the name of the victim. Section 228-A I IPC makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name or any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376, 376-A, 376-B, 376-C or 376-D is alleged or found to have been committed can be punished. True it is, the restriction does not relate to printing or publication of judgment by the High Court or the Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence for which Section 228-A has been enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgments, be it of this Court, the High Court or the lower court, the name of the victim should not be indicated, we have chosen to describe her as "victim" in the judgment. The above position was highlighted in State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja.
4. Prosecution version as unfolded during trial is essentially as follows:
One day prior to the occurrence i.e. on 9-3-1985 the police of Sursa arrested Ram Saran, husband of the informant (PW 1) and the challan was brought to the court concerned on the day of the occurrence. Om Prakash @ Chhotey (hereinafter referred to as "the accused") who was related to the parents of the informant, met them in the court premises. Jaipal (PW 2) brother of Ram Saran was also there along with the informant and she was talking to him about bail of her husband. After some time, accused Om Prakash sent PW 2 to find out whether the challan had come or not. Then at about 3.00 p.m. the accused overpowered the informant and he started raping her in the veranda of Zila Parishad near the court. When the informant raised alarm, PW 2 and one Ram Lal came there and they assaulted Om Prakash who was raping her and they apprehended him and the accused was taken to ~he police station. The informant gave oral information and then Chik Number 126 Exhibit A-I was recorded and the entry was made in the general diary and the case was registered. Internal examination of the body of the informant was done by Dr. Purnima Srivastava (PW 3) and the medical report is Exhibif A-2 and the supplementary report is Exhibit A-3. The medical examination of the accused was done by Dr. P.K. Gangwar (PW4) and the report is Exhibit A-4. The underwear of the accused was seized in the police station and the seizure memo is Exhibit A-6 and the petticoat of the informant was seized and the seizure memo is Exhibit A-7. The charge of investigation of the case was given to Shri Mahesh Lal Vadhuria (PW 6), who prepared the site plan of the place of occurrence (Exhibit A-8). The underwear of the accused and the petticoat of the victim were sent for chemical examination and the report is Exhibit A-21. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused and cognizance of the offence was taken and thereafter the case was committed to the Sessions Court by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hardoi.
5. Charge was framed against the accused Om Prakash @ Chhotey under Section 376 IPC. The accused did not admit the charge and demanded trial.
6. To substantiate its version, the prosecution examined the victim (the informant), eyewitness Jaipal (PW 2), Dr. Smt Purnima Srivastava (PW 3), Dr. P.K. Gangwar (PW 4), Shri Uttam Kumar (PW 5), Shri Mahesh Lal a Vadhuria (PW 6) and Head Constable Shri Jitendra Singh (PW 7).
7. The statement of the accused Om Prakash was recorded under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (in short "CrPC")
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
