Breaking News Name of rape victim should not be mentioned in...

Name of rape victim should not be mentioned in order sheet, stresses SC

-

New Delhi, Jul 1 (ILNS) The Supreme Court has dismissed the plea by a man convicted for raping a minor girl and sentenced to 10-years rigorous imprisonment with a fine.

A three-Judge Bench led by Justice Ashok Bhushan yesterday noted in its order that the Trial Court Judge had written the name of the prosecutrix in his order sheet. The apex court took strong objection to it and said the name of the rape victim should not be mentioned in the order sheet.

“The writ petition is dismissed, but we take exception that the session judge has mentioned the name of the Victim. It is well settled that name of victims should not be mentioned in these type of cases. We direct that the Session Judge should be careful in Future, and not to take name of victims in such case,” the Court noted.

The Top Court also rapped the Counsel appearing for the petitioner against his submission that there was a consent. The Court asked the age of the prosecutrix, to which he replied 16-years-old. The Court said, “Then, there is no consent.”

The Court was hearing the plea filed by a man, who was convicted by the Trial Court for charges of rape under the Indian Penal Code, which was later affirmed by the Chhattisgarh High Court. 

Chhattisgarh High Court Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma noted in his order, “Looking at the entire evidence, it cannot be said that it is consensual intercourse. There is nothing on record that the appellant has been roped with false charge. The statement of the prosecutrix is quite natural, inspires confidence and merits acceptance.

“In the traditional non-permissive bounds of society of India, no girl or woman of self-respect and dignity would depose, falsely implicating somebody of ravishing her chastity by sacrificing and jeopardising her future prospects. When her evidence is inspiring confidence, no corroboration is necessary. The act of the accused falls within Section 376(1) and 342 of IPC, for which the trial Court has convicted the appellant and the same is hereby affirmed,” the High Court added.

“The Trial Court awarded 10-year RI to the accused for offence of rape under Section 376 (1) of IPC, which cannot be termed as harsh, unreasonable or disproportionate. Sentence part is also not liable to be interfered with,” said the High Court, while cancelling his bail bonds and directing the Trial Court to prepare super-session warrant and issue non-bailable warrant against the said appellant and after his arrest, he be sent to jail for serving out the remainder of the sentence. ILNS/KR/SNG/RJ

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

Latest news

Rotary and Tata Trusts to collaborate in Cancer care, Covid care, Nutrition, Rural Uplift Livelihoods, to supplement efforts towards strengthening the nation

New Delhi, July 14 (ILNS) The Tata Trusts and Rotary today announced a five-year collaboration to scale...

Bar Council of Delhi distributed more than Rs 19 crore to lawyers during lockdown: BCD Chairman Ramesh Gupta

New Delhi, Jul 14 (ILNS) The Bar Council of Delhi is reaching out to the lawyers, who...

NGT flays Haryana over sewage overflow on National Highway-19

New Delhi, Jul 14 (ILNS) The National Green Tribunal has pulled up the state of Haryana over...

SC issues notice to UP govt for going ahead with Kanwar Yatra, amid COVID-19 pandemic

New Delhi, Jul 14 (ILNS) The Supreme Court today took suo motu cognisance and issued notice to the Uttar...

Government decision is unconstitutional, SC strikes down Tribunal Reforms Ordinance,2021

New Delhi, Jul 14 (ILNS) The Supreme Court today struck down the provisions of the Tribunal Reforms...

AP knocks SC doors over illegal use of water from inter-state irrigation projects

New Delhi, Jul 14 (ILNS) The state of Andhra Pradesh has filed a petition before the Supreme Court to...

Must read

You might also likeRELATED
Recommended to you