Delhi District Court
State vs . Ranjita on 12 August, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAVJEET BUDHIRAJA, METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE04,
SOUTH DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
STATE VS. Ranjita
FIR NO: 755/04
P. S Sangam Vihar
U/s 338 IPC & Section 4 r/s Section 5 of
the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act 1971
Unique ID No. 02403R0661642007
JUDGMENT
Sl. No. of the case : 2639/2 (20.01.2014)
Date of its institution : 07.09.2007
Name of the complainant : Smt. Jayawati W/o Sh. Dhani Ram
R/o I134/2, Sangam Vihar, New Delhi.
Date of Commission of offence : 31.07.2004
Name of the accused : Ranjita D/o Sh. Ram Mohan
R/o B1417, Gali no.2, Sangam Vihar,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of : 338 IPC & Section 4 r/w Section 5 of
the Medical Termination of
Pregnancy Act, 1971
Plea of accused : Not Guilty
Case reserved for orders : 12.08.2015
Final Order : Acquittal
Date of orders : 12.08.2015
State Vs. Ranjita FIR No.755/04 1/6
BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS FOR THE DECISION:
1. This is the prosecution of the aforesaid accused pursuant to a charge sheet filed by the Police Station Sangam Vihar under Section 338 Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") and Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 subsequent to the investigation carried out by them in FIR no.755/04.
2. The case of the prosecution is adumbrated as that on 31.07.2004 at Kalka Clinic, gali. no.2, I block Sangam Vihar, New Delhi, accused failed to take sufficient guard against the probable danger to the human life and personal safety of others by negligently performing the abortion on the person of complainant Smt. Jayawati which resulted into dangerous injury to her. Further, accused not being authorized or registered medical practitioner for performing the operation of termination of the pregnancy of complainant Jayawati and terminates the pregnancy of the complainant at an unapproved above said place in violation of Section 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
3. Accused was formally served with notice under section 338 IPC & Section 4 r/w Section 5 of the Medial Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 to which she pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. In all, prosecution examined seven witnesses to establish its case against the accused.
5. PW1 Dr. Sabari Nandi was examined in place of Dr. Pinki Saxena who proved the MLC of complainant Smt. Jayawati as Ex.PW1/A. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused. PW2 Smt. Jayawati deposed about the manner and circumstances in which the alleged incident took place and also proved her statement as Ex.PW2/A. She was cross examined on behalf of the accused. PW3 Sh. Dhani Ram also deposed as to how the alleged incident took place. He was not cross examined on State Vs. Ranjita FIR No.755/04 2/6 behalf of the accused despite according opportunity. PW4 Mr. Punit Malik proved the diploma of the accused in naturopathy as Ex.PW4/A & B and also proved the seizure memo of two mark sheets as Ex.PW4/C. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused. SI Manoj Kumar was examined as PW5 who proved the statement of the complainant as Ex.PW2/A and rukka as Ex.PW5/A. He was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite according opportunity. Witness ASI Jawahar Lal was examined as PW6 who is the Investigating Officer and he proved arrest memo as Ex.PW6/A. He was cross examined on behalf of the accused. HC Ram Singh is examined as PW6 (in fact PW7) who proved the FIR as Ex.PW6/A and endorsement on the rukka Ex.PW5/A. He was not cross examined on behalf of the accused despite according opportunity. Lastly, Smt. Sonawati was examined as PW7 (in fact PW8).
6. Prosecution evidence stood closed vide order dated 16.07.2015. Accused was examined U/s 313 Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short "the Code") wherein incriminating circumstances appearing in the evidence against her were put which she demurred and stated that she is innocent and she has never been involved prior to this in any criminal case. She, however, chose not to lead defence evidence. Consequently, the matter was then posted for final arguments.
7. It is the argument of the Ld. APP for the state that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved and accused is entitleld to conviction as per law. On the contrary, it has been stoutly canvassed by Ld. Counsel for the accused that accused deserves to be acquitted on the ground that prosecution has failed to establish the identity of the accused as well as to prove the essential ingredients of the offence with which the accused has been charged.
8. I have perused the records of the case and heard the contentions raised at the bar. State Vs. Ranjita FIR No.755/04 3/6
9. Accused is indicted for offence U/s 338 IPC and Section 4 r/w Section 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
10. Section 338 IPC enunciates rash or negligent act leading to grievous injuries. The gravamen of the prosecution is that complainant Smt. Jayavanti went to the clinic of the accused where she was administered certain medicines for abortion of the child due to which complainant suffered excess bleeding and had to be operated upon in Safdarjung Hospital. To bring home the charges, prosecution has examined complainant Smt. Jayavati as PW2 whose examination in chief before the court is as follows:
"On 31.07.2004 while I went to Kalka clinic gali no.2 for treatment Ranjita met me. At that time I was pregnant for one and a half months. I had gone with my mother in law to get an abortion. Somebody gave me injection and I became unconscious. It is correct that police had recorded my statement the same is Ex.PW2/A bears my signatures at point A. On that day my mother in law was also with me. Dr. Ranjita gave me medicine and due to which bleeding was started. On 02.08.2004 I went to AIIMS with my husband and from there I was referred to Safdarjung hospital there I was operated four times. Thereafter, on 04.09.2004 I was discharged...................I cannot identify the accused present today before the court..........".
11. From the above said extract, it is noted that complainant/PW2 Smt. Jayavati has not lent desirable strength to the case of the prosecution. She appears to be nescient in her testimony. She has deposed that on 31.07.2004 she went to Kalka clinic, gali no.2 for treatment where one Ranjita met her. She was pregnant for one and a half months. She had gone with her mother in law for abortion. Somebody gave her injection and she became unconscious. Then, she has also deposed that Dr. Ranjita gave her State Vs. Ranjita FIR No.755/04 4/6 medicine due to which bleeding was started. On 02.08.2004 she went to AIIMS hospital with her husband from where she was referred to Safdarjung hospital where she was operated upon four times. She could not identify the accused before the court. In her cross examination also she stated that she is not certain if the accused is the same person who gave her medicines.
12. It is pellucid from above that witness PW2 has been vacillating on the point of the identity of the accused. Moreover, the details of the alleged medicines given by one Ranjita have also not been brought on record by the prosecution.
13. Prosecution has also examined Sh. Dhani Ram, husband of complainant Smt. Jayavati, as PW3 who has also not supported the case of the prosecution despite roving cross examination by Ld. APP for the state. He could not tell as to who terminated the pregnancy of his wife. He expostulated giving any statement to the police U/s 161 of Code.
14. Now zeroing in on the charge U/s 4 read with Section 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 is reproduced as below:
Place where pregnancy may be terminated - No termination of pregnancy shall be made in accordance with this Act at any place other than
(a) a hospital established or maintained by Government, or
(b) a place for the time being approved for the purpose of this Act by Government or a District Level Committee constituted by that Government with the Chief Medical Officer or District Health Officer as the Chairperson of the said Committee.
15. Section 4 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 talks about the place where pregnancy may be terminated. As per this section, pregnancy can be terminated either at a hospital established or maintained by government or at a place which is approved State Vs. Ranjita FIR No.755/04 5/6 by the government or District Level Committee constituted by that government. In the instant case, there is no evidence adduced on record to demonstrate that the alleged abortion of complainant Smt. Jayavati was carried out at an unauthorized place or clinic. Complainant PW2 Smt. Jayavati has spoken about visiting Kalka clinic, gali no. 2 for her treatment but the prosecution has not adduced any evidence to bring the accused within the precincts of Section 4 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 as it has failed to bring on record that the said clinic was unauthorized one for the purpose of removing the pregnancy. Testimony of PW3 Dhani Ram has also fallen shot of proving this fact in as much as he has also merely talked about the nearby clinic without etching out any details of the same.
16. Although, prosecution has also examined other witnesses particularly PW1 Dr. Sabari Nandi and PW4 Mr. Punit Malik, Secretary of All India Nature Cure Federation but in view of the position emerged on record, it would be a wild goose chase to deliberate upon their testimonies.
17. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charges against the accused for offence U/s 338 IPC & Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. Thus, accused Ranjita stands acquitted for offence U/s 338 IPC & Section 4 read with Section 5 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. She is set at liberty. Bail bonds U/s 437 A Cr.P.C is to be furnished which would remain valid for a period of six months. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (Navjeet Budhiraja)
on 12.08.2015 Metropolitan Magistrate04,
South, New Delhi
State Vs. Ranjita FIR No.755/04 6/6