caselaws
Supreme Court of India
Lalit Yadav vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 5 July, 2018Author: ………………….J.
Bench: [ U Lalit], [ M Sapre]
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
S.L.P.(Criminal) D.No.18436 of 2015
LALIT YADAV … APPELLANT(S)
VS.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH … RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
Delay condoned.
1. 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-
Signature Not Verified
ANITA MALHOTRA
Date: 2018.07.10
A of IPC though the explanation makes an exception in favour
Digitally signed by
18:06:15 IST
Reason:
of the judgments of the superior court. Nonetheless, every
1
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 directions so that the trial courts in
the State comply with the mandate and spirit of Section 228-
A IPC.
………………….J.
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]
………………….J.
[UDAY UMESH LALIT]
New Delhi;
July 5, 2018.
2
Comments