PAN SINGH & ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Pan Singh And Another
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(2.) 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 is not included in the definition of "printing and publication" in the above provision for which there are several pronouncements by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, 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".
(3.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 14.10.2011 passed by the then Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal in Sessions Trial No.1/2010, whereby the appellants i.e. Pan Singh & Santan Singh were convicted under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellants /accused were also convicted under Section 506 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year. The appellants / accused were also convicted under Section 3(1)(xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as the S.C. & S.T. Act) and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs.1000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the appellants have to further undergo simple imprisonment of one month. Out of the fine imposed, a sum of Rs.5,000/- was directed to pay to the prosecutrix. All the sentences are to run concurrently.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.