YASEEN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
LAWS(UTN)-2013-5-35
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
Decided on May 02,2013

YASEEN Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Heard.
(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 general 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 30.05.2006 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.297/2001, whereby the appellant i.e. Yaseen was convicted under Section 376 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. The appellant / accused was also convicted under Section 3(1)(xi) 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 rigorous imprisonment of one year and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to further undergo rigorous imprisonment of two months. The amount of fine imposed on the appellant / accused shall be paid to the victim. Both the sentences are to run concurrently.;


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