REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

S.L.P.(Criminal) No.       of 2018 (@ out of SLP(Crl.)D.No.18436/2015)

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-A of IPC though the explanation makes an exception in

favour  of  the  judgments  of  the  superior  court.

Nonetheless, every 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

1

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