Lalit Yadav v. The State of Chhattisgarh

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: Abhay Manohar Sapre
Uday Umesh Lalit
Judgment Date: 2018-07-05
Court Decision / Holding: Delay condoned. The Court did not upset the conviction and sentence and dismissed the petition. It directed the High Court Registry to place the appeal record before the presiding Judge for necessary changes to the record and to issue practice directions so trial courts in the State comply with Section 228-A IPC.
Final Disposition: Petition dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld; registry directed to amend records to protect victim identity in accordance with Section 228-A IPC.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Lalit Yadav

Respondents

The State of Chhattisgarh

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Akshat Shrivastava
• Sarabjit Dutta
• Ms. Pooja Shrivastava

Case Synopsis & Summary

This Special Leave Petition (Criminal) arises from a conviction under Sections 376 IPC and 342 IPC, with the High Court of Bilaspur (CG) upholding the conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court, while not upsetting the conviction and the sentences, emphasizes a crucial privacy principle: the victim in rape cases should not be named in the record, as required by Section 228-A IPC. The judgment notes that the victim (PW-2) was named throughout the record, which contravenes Section 228-A, albeit with an exception for judgments of superior courts as per the Explanation. Citing State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, the Court directs the High Court Registry to modify the record and issue practice directions so that trial courts in Chhattisgarh comply with the mandate and spirit of Section 228-A. The Court condones the delay in filing the petition and ultimately dismisses the petition, while redirecting authorities to take steps to protect victim identity in future records. The decision confirms the appellate legitimacy of the conviction and sentence, but reinforces a binding privacy obligation to prevent disclosure of a rape victim’s identity in ongoing proceedings and judgments.

Provisions of Law Cited

Penal Code, 1860 – Section 228-A (Disclosures of identity of rape victim)Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376 (Punishment for rape)Penal Code, 1860 – Section 342 (Wrongful confinement)Explanation to Section 228-A IPC

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Not to disclose the identity of rape victims under Section 228-A IPC (privacy principle)

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

Petitioner submitted that the record should adhere to the privacy requirements of Section 228-A IPC, and requested appropriate changes to the record and issuance of practice directions to ensure trial courts comply with the spirit of the statute.

Contentions of Respondents

State argued for upholding the conviction and the sentence; emphasized the recordkeeping process but did not oppose the need to protect victim identity; requested dismissal of the petition and adherence to the High Court’s decision.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh	(2004) 1 SCC 421	Positive	The Court relies on this precedent to affirm the principle that courts should not disclose the identity of rape victims, reinforcing the statutory mandate of Section 228-A IPC.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

[2018] 10 S.C.R. 771 771 LALIT YADAV A v. ## THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (S.L.P (Criminal) No. 5631 of 2018) ## JULY 05, 2018 B ## **[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]** _Penal Code, 1860 – s.228-A – Disclosure of identity of the victim of rape – In the instant case, the victim of rape (PW-2) was_ C _named throughout in the record – Such course is inconsistent with s.228-A though Explanation makes an exception in favour of judgments of superior court – Every attempt should be made by all the courts not to disclose the identity of the victim in terms of s.228-A – The Registry of the High Court is directed to place the record of the appeal in the High Court for causing appropriate_ D _changes in the record including passing appropriate practice directions so that the trial courts in the State comply with the mandate and spirit of s.228-A – Practice and Procedure._ _State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh_ **(2004) 1 SCC 421 – relied on.** E ## **Case Law Reference** **(2004) 1 SCC 421 relied on Para 2** CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 5631 of 2018. From the Judgment and Order dated 26.04.2014 of the High Court F of Judicature at Bilaspur (CG) in Criminal Appeal No. 45 of 2003. Akshat Shrivastava, Sarabjit Dutta, Ms. Pooja Shrivastava, Advs. for the Petitioner. The following Order of the Court was passed: ## **O R D E R** G 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 H 771 772 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2018] 10 S.C.R. - A 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 B as PW2 has been named all through. Such a course is not consistent with Section 228-Aof 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 in _State of Punjab_ v. _Ramdev Singh_ reported in (2004)1 C 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 D comply with the mandate and spirit of Section 228- A IPC. Devika Gujral Petition dismissed. E F G H