AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 242 wordsDelay 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.
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
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.
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.