Lalit Yadav vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

S.L.P.(Criminal) D.No.18436 of 2015

LALIT YADAV ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

1. The petitioner was convicted under Sections 376 IPC and

Section 342 IPC and sentenced to substantive sentences of

seven years and one year respectively. His conviction and

sentence has been affirmed by the High Court by dismissing

present appeal. We do not see any reason to upset the

orders of conviction and sentence and as such this petition

stands dismissed.

2. We, however, notice from the judgments of both, the

trial court and the High Court that the victim in the

present case who was examined as PW2 has been named all

through. Such a course is not consistent with Section 228- Signature Not Verified ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2018.07.10 A of IPC though the explanation makes an exception in favour Digitally signed by

18:06:15 IST Reason:

of the judgments of the superior court. Nonetheless, every

1 attempt should be made by all the courts not to disclose the

identity of the victim in terms of said Section 228-A IPC.

It has been so laid down by this Court in State of Punjab v.

Ramdev Singh reported in (2004)1 SCC 421.

3. While dismissing the present matter, we direct the

Registry of the High Court to place the record of the appeal

in the High Court before the learned Judge for causing

appropriate changes in the record including passing

appropriate practice directions so that the trial courts in

the State comply with the mandate and spirit of Section 228-

A IPC.

......................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

......................J. [UDAY UMESH LALIT]

New Delhi;

July 5, 2018.

2