Supreme Court of India
LALIT YADAV versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH on 5 July 2018
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 771
771
LALIT YADAV
A
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(S.L.P (Criminal) No. 5631 of 2018)
B
JULY 05, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND
UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.228-A – Disclosure of identity of thevictim of rape – In the instant case, the victim of rape (PW-2) wasCnamed throughout in the record – Such course is inconsistent withs.228-A though Explanation makes an exception in favour ofjudgments of superior court – Every attempt should be made by allthe courts not to disclose the identity of the victim in terms ofs.228-A – The Registry of the High Court is directed to place therecord of the appeal in the High Court for causing appropriateDchanges in the record including passing appropriate practicedirections so that the trial courts in the State comply with the mandateand spirit of s.228-A – Practice and Procedure.
State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh (2004) 1 SCC 421 –
relied on.
E
Case Law Reference
(2004) 1 SCC 421
relied onPara 2
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : S.L.P. (Criminal)No. 5631 of 2018.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2014 of the High Courtof Judicature at Bilaspur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2003.
Akshat Shrivastava, Sarabjit Dutta, Ms. Pooja Shrivastava, Advs.for the Petitioner.
The following Order of the Court was passed:
G
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
1. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 376 IPC andSection 342 IPC and sentenced to substantive sentences of seven yearsand one year respectively. His conviction and sentence has been affirmed H
Aby the High Court by dismissing present appeal. We do not see anyreason to upset the orders of conviction and sentence and as such thispetition stands dismissed.
2. We, however, notice from the judgments of both, the trial courtand the High Court that the victim in the present case who was examinedBas PW2 has been named all through. Such a course is not consistentwith Section 228-Aof IPC though the explanation makes an exceptionin favour of the judgments of the superior court. Nonetheless, everyattempt should be made by all the courts not to disclose the identity ofthe victim in terms of said Section 228-A IPC. It has been so laid downby this Court in State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh reported in (2004)1CSCC 421.
3. While dismissing the present matter, we direct the Registry ofthe High Court to place the record of the appeal in the High Court beforethe learned Judge for causing appropriate changes in the record includingpassing appropriate practice directions so that the trial courts in the StateDcomply with the mandate and spirit of Section 228- A IPC.
Devika Gujral Petition dismissed.
E
F
G
H