CHHATRADHARI Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned amicus curiae for the accused-appellant, learned Additional Government Advocate and perused the judgment as well as the record of the trial Court.

(2.) In the present judgment, I do not propose to mention the name of the victim girl in view of the provisions of Section 228A I.P.C. and in pursuance of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-4 in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shree Kant Shekari (AIR 2004 SC 4404) the prosecutrix (hereinafter referred to as 'victim').

(3.) Before I deal with the issues raised before this Court, at the outset some aspects of the case needs to be expressed. On the material placed before me, it is beyond the pale of any doubt or controversy that the victim of the offence, allegedly committed by the appellant, was a child' within the meaning of the expression defined in Section 2(1)(d) of Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, hereinafter referred to as the "POCSO Act", she being below the age of 18 years at the relevant point of time. In view of the nature of offences involved, she is entitled to the protection envisaged by law in Section 33(7) of POCSO Act. To put it simply, the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 2 Kushinagar at Padrauna was duty bound to ensure that her identity was "not disclosed at any time". However, this precaution was given a go-by during the proceedings before the learned Additional Sessions Judge throughout the judgement.