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

DORAISWAMY RAJU, ARIJIT PASAYAT
State of Karnataka – Appellant
Versus
Puttaraja – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Anil Kr. Mishra, Advocate for Sanjay R. Hegde, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Rao Ranjit, Advocate (A.C.).

Judgment

Arijit Pasayat, J.—A rapist not only causes physical injuries but more indelibly leaves a scar on the most cherished possession of a women i.e. her dignity, chastity, honour and reputation. The depravation of such animals in human form reach the rock bottom of morality when they sexually assault children, minors and like the case at hand, a woman in the advance stage of pregnancy.

2. We do not propose to mention name of the victim. Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) makes disclosure of identity of victim of certain offences punishable. Printing or publishing name of any matter which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Section 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 High Court or Supreme Court. But keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimization 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, High Court or lower Court, the name of the victim s

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