Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

LALIT YADAV versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Decided
5 July 2018
Judges listed
UDAY UMESH LALIT, ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Dismissed

Citations

Official
[2018] 10 S.C.R. 771 · 2018 INSC 585
Also cited as
  • (2018) 7 SCC 499 (2 citing judgments)

Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.

Cited by

We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

Delay condoned.

p. 771, margin G

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.

pp. 771–772, margin G

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-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 SCC 421.

p. 772, margin A

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.

p. 772, margin C