MANOJ @ TIGER Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Manoj @ Tiger
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 I.P.C., 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. 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 victim has not been mentioned in the present judgment and the victim is only addressed as "prosecutrix".
(2.) Heard learned Senior Counsel with Amicus Curiae for the appellant and learned AGA for the State.
(3.) Present Criminal Appeal arises out of a judgment and order dated 28.5.2010 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge/First Fast Track Court, District Kashipur, Udham Singh Nagar in Sessions Trial No. 144 of 2008 convicting the present appellant under Sections 307 and 376 IPC and thereby sentencing him for 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, 10 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 376 IPC and fine of Rs. 5,000/-.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.