VIKRAM SINGH; VIJAY PAL SINGH; SANTOSH SINGH RANGARH; GAMBHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-6-170
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 25,2013

Vikram Singh; Vijay Pal Singh; Santosh Singh Rangarh; Gambhir Singh Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

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 concurrently.
(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". ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.