SACHIN Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND (AT: NAINITAL)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Heard Mr. Pankaj Miglani, Advocate for the appellants and Mr. M. A. Khan, Brief Holder with Mr. Hari Om Bhakuni, Brief Holder for the State.
(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 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 .
(3.) The present appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 07.04.2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge / 1st F.T.C., Roorkee, District Haridwar in Sessions Trial No.175/2010, whereby the appellant i.e. Sachin was convicted under Sections 363/34, 366/34 and 376 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years, 5 years and 7 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, Rs.2000/- and Rs.3000/- respectively. In default of payment of fine of Rs.1,000/- Rs.2000/- & Rs.3000/-, appellant Sachin has to further undergo imprisonment for one month, two months and three months respectively. Rest of the appellants i.e. Soni & Popin were convicted under Sections 363, 366 read with Section 34 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years in each count and a fine of Rs.1,000/- each. In default of payment of fine of Rs.1,000/-, the appellants Soni and Popin have to further undergo imprisonment for one month. All the sentences are to run concurrently. However, accused Hari and Karmbir were acquitted from the charges leveled against them.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.