AIR 2003 SUPREME COURT 4684 ::2003 AIR SCW 5493 ::2003 Cri(AP)pR(SC) 652 ::(2003) 12 IndLD 54 ::(2004) 2 BomCR(Cri) 142 ::2004 ChandLR(Civ&Cri) 259 ::2004 (1) UJ (SC) 495 ::(2003) 4 CurCriR 340 ::(2004) 1 AllCriR 573 ::2004 SCC(Cri) 31 ::2003 (8) SCC 551 ::2003 (4) RecCriR 960 ::(2004) 1 Sim LC 150 ::(2003) 8 Scale 735 ::(2004) 2 AllCriLR 498 ::2004 (1) AllCriLR 115 ::2004 (1) ChandCriC 165 ::2004 (27) OCR 178 ::(2003) 3 KCCR 2370 ::2004 (2) RajCriC 341 ::2004 (1) UC 379 ::2003 (7) SLT 11 ::(2004) 1 Guj LR 761 ::(2003) 9 AllIndCas 676 (KAR) ::2003 (12) AllIndCas 794 ::2003 (47) AllCriC 1107 ::(2004) SC Cr R 488 ::2004 (1) SRJ 244

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Himachal Pradesh)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): Doraiswamy Raju, Arijit Pasayat , JJ

(A) Criminal P.C. (2 of 1974) , S.354— Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.228A— Judgment - Be of High Court or lower Court - Name of victim of sexual offence not to be given - Though S. 228-A, Penal Code does not apply to printing/publication of judgments of superior Courts - It is appropriate not to give name of victim keeping social object of S. 228-A, Penal Code in view. (Para 2) (B) Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.376— Rape - Evidence of victim - Corroboration - Not necessary for basing conviction. To insist on corroboration except in the rarest of rare cases is to equate one who is a victim of the lust of another with an accomplice to a crime and thereby insult womanhood. It would be adding insult to injury to tell a woman that her chain of rape will not be believed unless it is corroborated in material particulars as in the case of an accomplice to a crime. (See State of Maharashtra v. Chandra Prakash Kewalchand Jain, AIR 1990 SC 658 : 1990 Cri LJ 889). Why should be the evidence of the girl or the woman who complains of rape or sexual molestation be viewed with the aid of spectacles fitted with lenses tinged with doubt, disbelief or suspicion ?(Para 12) (C) Penal Code (45 of 18....