STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs. JAGDISH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Amit Kapri, Brief Holder for the appellant / State and Mr. Sandeep Tandon, Advocate for the respondents/accused.

(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 09.02.2005 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Sessions Trial No.113/1998, whereby the respondents/accused, i.e. Jagdish, Satish, Raju @ Raj Kumar and Prem were acquitted from the charges under Section 457 / 376 (e) & (g) / 506 I.P.C.