SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(SC) 765

A.M.SAPRE, UDAY UMESH LALIT
Lalit Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:Akshat Shrivastava, Sarabjit Dutta, Pooja Shrivastava, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Delay condoned.

The petitioner was convicted under Sections 376 IPC and Section 342 IPC and sentenced to substantive sentences of seven years and one year respectively. His conviction and sentence has been affirmed by the High Court by dismissing present appeal. We do not see any reason to upset the orders of conviction and sentence and as such this petition stands dismissed.

2. We, however, notice from the judgments of both, the trial court and the High Court that the victim in the present case who was examined as PW2 has been named all through. Such a course is not consistent with Section 228- A of IPC though the explanation makes an exception in favour of the judgments of the superior court. Nonetheless, every attempt should be made by all the courts not to disclose the identity of the victim in terms of said Section 228-A IPC. It has been so laid down by this Court in State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh reported in (2004)1 SCC 421.

3. While dismissing the present matter, we direct the Registry of the High Court to place the record of the appeal in the High Court before the learned Judge for causing appropriate changes in the record including passing appropriate practice direct

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top