MOH LAIK @ RAJA Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Moh Laik @ Raja
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) 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 IPC, Section 228A has been inserted vide Act No.43 of 1983, in order that the identity of the alleged victims of the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. may not be disclosed.
(2.) Although, printing and publication in law general may not be strictly included in the definition of printing and publication in the above provision for which there are 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 alleged victims are only addressed as "prosecutrix".
(3.) Since in this case the appellant was not being represented by any counsel at the time of final hearing, this Court vide order dated 2.5.2013 appointed Mr. B. M. Pingal, practicing Advocate of this Court, as Amicus Curiae for the appellant who has assisted the Court.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.