VIKRAM SINGH; VIJAY PAL SINGH; SANTOSH SINGH RANGARH; GAMBHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Vikram Singh; Vijay Pal Singh; Santosh Singh Rangarh; Gambhir Singh
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard Mr. R. P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate assisted by
Ms. Sangeeta Bharadwaj, Advocate for the appellant-Vijay Pal
Singh and Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocate for the appellantVikram Singh, Mr. Nandan Arya, Advocate for the appellantsGambhir Singh & Santosh Singh.
(2.) Since all four criminal appeals have arisen out of the
common impugned judgment and order dated 20.03.2010
passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Rishikesh Haridwar in S.T.
No.80/2001, hence these appeals were heard together and are
being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned
judgment and order, the appellants-Gambhir Singh, Vikram
Singh, Santosh Rangarh and Vijay Pal Singh were convicted
under Section 376(2)(g) I.P.C. and each of them were sentenced
to undergo imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.10,000/-
each. In default of payment of fine, each of the appellants have to
further undergo imprisonment for two years. All the appellants
were also convicted under Section 457 & 458 I.P.C. and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 5 years and fine
of Rs.5,000/- in each count. In default of payment of fine, the
appellants have to further undergo imprisonment for one month
in each count. Appellants were also convicted under Section 342
read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment of one year and fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default
of payment of fine, the appellants have to further undergo
imprisonment of ten days. All the sentences are to run
(3.) At the outset, it needs to be mentioned here that the
present matter pertains to Section 376 of the I.P.C. By an
amendment in the I.P.C., Section 228A has been inserted vide
Act No.43 of 1983, which bars the disclosure of the identity of the
prosecutrix by publication and in fact it makes it an offence.
Although, printing and publication in a law journal may not be
included in the definition of "printing and publication", yet
purely for reasons of abundant precaution, the name of the
alleged victim has not been mentioned in the present judgment
and the victim is only addressed here as the "prosecutrix".
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.