KLENDRO TYNHIANG Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment and order rendered by the learned District and Sessions Judge, West Khasi Hills District, Nongstoin in Sessions Case No. 76/2015 (Nongstoin P.S. Case 88 (6) 2010), whereby the appellant was found guilty and convicted for the offences under Section 376/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the "I.P.C."), and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only), and in default of payment of the fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months, for the offence under Section 376 I.P.C. No separate sentence for the offence under Section 506 I.P.C. was awarded.

(2.) I do not propose to mention the name of the victim. Section 228-A of the I.P.C. provides that for certain offences, the disclosure of the identity of the victim is punishable. Printing or publishing the name of any matter, which may make known the identity of any person against whom an offence under Sections 376A to 376E of the I.P.C. is alleged or is found to have been committed, can be punished. True as it is, the restriction does not relate to the printing or publication of a judgment by the High Court or the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, keeping in view the social object of preventing social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offence, for which Section 228-A of I.P.C was enacted, it would be appropriate that in the judgment, be it of the High Court or any Lower Court, the name of the victim should not be indicated. I have chosen to describe her as "victim" in the judgment. The above position was highlighted in the case of State of Karnataka v. Puttaraja, 2004 1 SCC 475.

(3.) The prosecution's version as unfolded during the trial is as follows: