Delhi District Court
Fir No. 620/05; State vs . Saleem Etc; Ps Seema Puri; U/S 342/376/ ... on 24 April, 2010
1
FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT
IN THE COURT OF SH. B.S. CHUMBAK, ADDITIONAL SESSIONS
JUDGE : DELHI
Case ID Number 02402R0663132005
Session Case No. 99/08
Assigned to Sessions 15/02/06
Arguments heard on 16/04/10
Date of order 24/04/10
FIR NO. 620/05
Police Station SEEMA PURI
Under Section 342/376/312/506/34 IPC r/w section
3,4 & 5 of MTP Act
Out come of the judgment ACQUITTED
State Versus 1. SALEEM
S/O ANWAR
R/O F-24 NEW SEEMAPURI
DELHI
2. ANWAR @ ANWAAR
S/O LATE BANDU
R/O F-24 NEW SEEMAPURI
DELHI
3. DR. SEEMA GUPTA
W/O DR. ASHOK GUPTA
R/O F-189, DILSHAD COLONY,
DELHI
Pr.: Ms. Neelam Narang, Ld. Addl. PP for state.
Sh. R.K. Kochhar Advocate on behalf of all the accused.
1.On 08.10.05 a case u/sec. 376/506/312/34 IPC was registered at police station Seema Puri vide FIR No. 620/05 on the basis of complaint filed by Kumari Mumtaz d/o Iqbal Hussain r/o E-198, New Seema Puri, Delhi against Saleem s/o Anwar r/o F-24, New Seema Puri, Delhi and Anwar s/o Late Bandu r/o F-24, New Seema Puri, Delhi.
Page1/36 2 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT
2. Brief facts arising out of this case are that initially case was registered against above named both the accused persons on the basis of statement of Kumari Mumtaz which is as follows :
"On 08.10.05 I was residing at E-198 New Seema Puri, Delhi. One Saleem s/o Anwar was also residing at E- 196, New Seem Puri, Delhi on rent with his family members and Balma sister of Saleem aged about 18 years was my friend and and we both were having visiting terms to their houses respectively. Six months ago at about 8 p.m I had gone to the house of Saleem and he was alone in the house. After my reaching at the house of Saleem he bolted door from inside and committed rape on me with extension of threat of killing me. He also extended threat of killing my parents in case I would disclose this incident to anyone. I got frightened therefore, I had not disclosed this incident to anyone. Due to the act of sexual intercourse committed by the accused I became pregnant. I also narrated this incident to Anwar father of Saleem. Thereafter, Anwar assured me to got Saleem marry with me. Due to this reason she did not disclose this incident to anyone. Anwar father of Saleem got me medically examined, ultrasound was got done and ultimately my pregnancy was got terminated and after terminating my pregnancy I was left near my house. I was feeling pain and also become late in reaching to my house, therefore, my father asked me about the whole incident and accordingly I narrated whole incident to my mother and my mother narrated this incident to my father. My parents went to the house of Anwar and asked about the marriage with Saleem but Anwar father of Saleem flatly refused to got marry his son with me and also extended threat of killing my parents."
3. After registration of the case investigation was initiated. Prosecutrix Page2/36 3 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT was got medically examined at GTB hospital, statement of witnesses were recorded, photocopy of the record of ultrasound were taken in possession from the office of Sai Ultrasound Center. Accused Saleem s/o Anwar was arrested on 8.10.05 and he was also got medically examined. Site plan was prepared. Accused Anwar s/o Bandu was arrested on 19.10.05. His disclosure statement was recorded. Notice u/s 91 Cr.P.C was served upon Dr. Seema Gupta, J.P. Memorial Hospital, Dilshad Colony and documents with regard to termination of pregnancy of Mumtaz were taken in possession. Requisite inquiries were made from Dr. Seema Gupta. Section 3/4/5 MTP Act r/w 312 IPC were also added and matter was investigated against Dr. Seema Gupta for the said offence. Ossification test of prosecutrix Mumtaz was got done wherein her age was opined between 14 to 16 years. After completion of all the necessary investigation challan u/s 173 Cr.P.C was presented to the court of Ld. MM.
4. Ld. MM after taking cognizance of the offence u/s 342/376/506/34 IPC against accused Saleem and Anwar and for the offence u/s 312 r/w 3/4/5 of MTP Act against accused Seema Gupta supplied the copies of the challan to all of them as required u/s 207 Cr.P.C and committed the case to the court of Sessions and on turn allocated to this court for trial. Thereafter, case was fixed for arguments on charge. Page3/36 4 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT
5. After hearing arguments on behalf of both the parties charge for the offence u/s 312/34 r/w 506 IPC was framed against accused Anwar, charge for the offence u/s 342/376/506 IPC was framed against accused Saleem s/o Anwar and charge for the offence u/s 312/34 IPC r/w section 3,4 & 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act was framed against co-accused Seema Gupta w/o Dr. Ashok Gupta to which all the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial therefore, case was fixed for prosecution evidence.
6. Kumari Mumtaz (prosecutrix) appeared as (PW1), Smt. Manjura Bibi mother of prosecutrix as (PW2), Ct. Karelal as (PW3), Ct. Bharat Veer Singh as (PW4), Ct. Ravinder as (PW5), Dr. Ruchika, Department of Gynae GTB Hospital as (PW6), WHC Durga as (PW7), Dr. Rajpal, Department of Radiology, GTB hospital as (PW8), Dr. Veena Panwar as (PW9), ASI Satya Parkash as (PW10), Dr. Nirja Goel, Professor and Unit Head, Obst and Gynae GTB hospital as (PW11), N.K. Sharma, Finger Print Expert, Finger Print Bureau, Malviya Nagar, Delhi as (PW12), Dr. S. Kohli, CMO GTB hospital as (PW13), Sh. Iqbal Hussain as (PW14) and ASI Kusum Lata as (PW15). Thereafter no PW left to be examined, therefore, prosecution evidence was closed and case was fixed for examination of accused u/s 313 Cr.P.C Page4/36 5 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT
7. Brief testimony of all the PW's are as follows:
(i) PW.1 prosecutrix deposed that prior to the incident she was residing at Seema Puri and accused Saleem was his neighbourer. Balma is the sister of Saleem, and was her friend and she used to visit her house.
Accused Saleem never misbehaved/outrage her modesty or committed rape on her. Accused Anwar is father of accused Saleem. Dr. Seema also known to her and she have no grievance against any of the three persons present in the court as none of them committed any harm to her. Dr. Seema is known to her as she had saved her life at once when she fell down and sustained injuries. While deposing so she resiled from her previous statement given by her to the police during investigation. Therefore, Ld. Addl. PP after seeking permission cross-examined the witness. During her cross-examination she stated that her statement was not recorded by the police and when statement Ex.PW 1/A was read over to the witness, she denied having been made any such statement to the police. She identified her thumb impression at point A on statement Ex.PW 1/A but submitted that her thumb impressions were obtained on some papers. She also denied that she had stated in her statement to the police that six months prior to 8/10/05 at about 8 P.M she had gone to the house of Saleem and he was alone at that time, accused Saleem had bolted the door of his house from inside and he Page5/36 6 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT committed rape on her after extended threats of killing her, thereby the witness confronted from portion A to A of statement marked 1/A wherein it was so recorded. In the same manner prosecutrix PW.1 has confronted from his statement portion B to B on mark 1/A wherein it was so recorded. She also denied that she had given any document to the police about the termination of her pregnancy. She also denied that her supplementary statement was ever recorded and when statement Ex.PW 1/F was read over and explained to her, she denied having been made such statement to the police. However, she confronted from his statement portion A to A, portion B to B of statement Ex.PW 1/F wherein it was so recorded.
Court question were also put to her as to whether at any point of time she carried any pregnancy to which she replied that six months ago a dead child was born in a hospital near Seema Puri Depot and Dilshad was the father of the child who was in relation of Saleem accused present in the court. During her further cross-examination she stated that she had not become pregnant prior to six months as mentioned on the last date of hearing i.e 03.01.07 and also stated that JAB MAIN PREGNANT THI, SALEEMKA BAP MUJHE LEY KAR GAYE THE, DR. SEMA GUPTA KE PASS LEY GAYA THA, MAIN TO US SAMAY BEHOSH MAIN THI, SEEMA GUPTA NE US SAMAY MANA KIYA, KI MERI PREGNANCY NAHI GIRAYEGI, SALEEMKEY BAAP NE MUJSE Page6/36 7 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT KAHA SAFAI KER LEY, NAHI TO MUJHE OR MERE GHAR WALO KO JAAN SE MAAR DEGA, USKE BAAD MAINE DR. SEEMA GUPTA KEY HAAT PAAO JORE OR KAHA MERA YE KAAM KER DO, MAIN GAREEM INSAAN HOON TO DOCTOR SAHAB NE MERI SAFAI KAR DI, MUJHE TAARIKH NAHI PATA JIS DIN MUJHE AASPATAL LEY KER GAYE THE.
She also admitted that when she had been treated at J P Memorial hospital she put her thumb impression on documents prepared in the hospital. Court question was asked as to whether there was any leakage on the day when she was taken to the hospital and requested Dr. Seema for termination of her pregnancy to which she replied (Yes). She further stated that she did not know any person namely Dilshad. Voluntarily, on 3/1/07 when she came to depose before the court in this case accused Anwar told him not to disclose the name of his son(Saleem) and asked her to give the name of one Dilshad that is why on the said date she had given the name of Dilshad in her statement. She further stated that name of father of her child was Saleem i.e accused present in the court and not Dilshad. During cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused, she stated that she had told the police that "JAB MAIN PREGNANT THI, SALEEM KA BAP MUJHE LEY KER GAYE THE, DR. SEEMA GUPTA KE PASS LEY GAYE THA, MAIN TO US SAMAY BEHOSH MAIN THI, SEEMA GUPTA NE US SAMAY Page7/36 8 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT MANA KIYA, KI MERI PREGNANCY NAHI GIRAYEGI, SALEEMKEY BAAP NE MUJSE KAHA SAFAI KER LEY, NAHI TO MUJHE OR MERE GHAR WALO KO JAAN SE MAAR DEGA, USKE BAAD MAINE DR.
SEEMA GUPTA KEY HAAT PAAO JORE OR KAHA MERA YE KAAM KER DO, MAIN GAREEM INSAAN HOON TO DOCTOR SAHAB NE MERI SAFAI KAR DI, MUJHE TAARIKH NAHI PATA JIS DIN MUJHE AASPATAL LEY KER GAYE THE."
While deposing so she confronted from statement marked PW 1/A wherein it was not so recorded. She also stated that she had disclosed the name of Saleem as father of her dead child for the first time in the court. She also admitted that Dr. Seema helped her and saved her life and terminated her pregnancy at her request. Rest of her testimony is re-iterated by her as submitted by her during her examination in chief.
(ii) PW2 is the mother of the prosecutrix and deposed that she cannot recollect the date or month of the incident but in the year 2005 she suspected her daughter Mumtiaz as not feeling well. On making inquiry her daughter told her that she was feeling pain in her stomach due to the reason of sustaining injuries due to fallen. She had taken her to the hospital but she cannot tell the name of the hospital. Accused Saleem, her neighbourer and one boy Dilshad used to visit the house of Saleem and had developed illicit relations with her daughter Page8/36 9 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT Mumtiaz/prosecutrix/PW.1. Doctor treated her daughter and saved her life. Her daughter never told her about rape committed on her by Saleem. Accused Anwar never extended threat on her nor her daughter was taken by him to a doctor for abortion. She stated that she has no grievances against any of the accused present in the court. After seeking permission Ld. Addl. PP cross-examined the witness wherein she stated that her statement Ex.PW 2/A was not recorded by the police. On explaining the contents of statement Ex.PW 2/A she totally denied having been made such statement and hence confronted. During cross-examination by Ld. counsel for accused she stated that her daughter Mumtiaz remained admitted in the Nursing Home for two days and before seeking admission her daughter Mumtiaz was having bleeding and also suffering from labour pain. Rest of her testimony is reiterated by her as submitted in her examination in chief.
(iii) PW3 deposed that on 8/10/05 he joined the investigation of this case with W/ASI Kusum. On that day the duty officer of P.S Seema Puri handed over the original rukka and copy of the FIR for handing over the same to the IO. On that day he along with IO and the complainant Manjura Bibi went to New Seema Puri and arrested accused Saleem present in the court from his house on the pointing out of Smt. Manjura Bibi vide arrest memo Ex.PW 3/A and his personal search memo is Page9/36 10 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT Ex.PW 3/B, bearing his signatures at points A. Rest of his testimony is reiterated by him as submitted in his examination in chief.
(iv) PW.4 deposed that on 8/10/05 he joined the investigation of this case with ASI Kusum and had gone to GTB hospital along with Saleem for his medical examination and after medical examination of accused, doctor on duty handed over him sealed pullanda containing blood sample and semen sample which he handed over the same to the IO vide memo Ex.PW 4/A.
(v) PW.5 deposed that on 19/10/05 he joined the investigation of this case with ASI Kusum Lata and on that day accused Anwar was arrested on the pointing out of Mumtiaz/PW.1 from old Seema Puri Chowk. Arrest memo and personal search memo of accused Anwar are Ex.PW 5/A & Ex.PW 5/B, respectively, both memos bears his signatures at points A. On that day doctor Seema Gupta from J P Memorial hospital, F-189 Dilshad Colony handed over, ten photo state copies of indoor record, consent form, investigation record etc.,and all these were taken in possession vide memo Ex.PW 5/C which bears his signatures at point A. The Photo state documents are Ex. PW 5/1-10.
(vi) PW.6 is Dr. Ruchika from Department of Gynae GTB hospital and Page10/36 11 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT deposed that on 7/10/05 she had medically examined patient Mumtiaz d/o Iqbal Hassan 14 years old female who was brought to the hospital by police with the alleged history of sexual assault by Saleem six months back and with the alleged history of six months amenorrhea. She further stated that MTP was done by medical method. She had also seen the Ultra sound report dt. 27/9/05 and as per report there was single life fetus of 19 weeks. On local examination hymen was torn. Her detailed report is Ex.PW 6/A bearing her signatures at point A. During her cross-examination she further stated that patient/prosecutrix had not disclosed to her that her MTP was got done under coercion and there was no mark of external injury.
(vii) PW7 deposed that on 7/10/05 she joined the investigation of this case with IO/ASI Kusum. They both took the prosecutrix/PW.1 to GTB hospital for medical examination. She handed over the MLC to the IO and the prosecutrix was admitted in the hospital. During her cross- examination she stated that no family member of the prosecutrix had gone to the hospital with them and her statement was recorded by the IO in the hospital. Rest of her testimony is reiterated by her as submitted in her examination in chief.
(viii) PW8 Dr. Raj pal deposed that on 20/10/05 he examined the x- Page11/36 12 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT rays plate no. 7368 of Mumtiaz to ascertain her age and as per his opinion age of the prosecutrix was above 14 years and below 16 years as per ossification test. His report is Ex.PW 8/A bearing his signatures at point A. During his cross-examination he denied the suggestion that as per ossification test age of the prosecutrix was above 18 years and not less 16 years at the time of her examination. He also admitted that he had not examined the patient personally and gave his opinion on the basis of x-ray plates produced before him.
(ix) PW.9 Veena Panwar, medical practitioner deposed that on 27/9/05 she conducted the ulta sound of Mumtiaz/PW.1/ prosecutrix who was referred to her by J P Memorial hospital. She had been running a clinic under the name of Sai Ultra sound centre, in GTB Enclave, her report is Ex.PW 9/A bearing her signatures at point A. She handed over the original report and print out to the patient and the print out is mark PW 1/D. During her cross-examination she stated that patient had not made any complaint to her against any one that she was sent for ultra sound forcibly. She also obtained the thumb impression of the patient for conducting her ultra sound with her consent.
Page12/36 13
FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT
(x) PW.10 deposed that on 29/11/05 he joined the investigation of this case with ASI Kusum Lata. ASI Kusum Lata obtained the thumb impression of both hands of Mumtiaz d/o Iqbal on a paper, same is Ex.PW.10A and Ex.PW 10/B respectively bearing his signatures at points A.
(xi) PW.11 Dr. Neerja Goel is a chairman of medical board and deposed that on 8.12.05 a medical board was constituted Dr. Amita Suneja and Dr. Abha Sharma were also the member of said board. They had gone through the patient history/report and also examined the patient Mumtaz. After obtaining consent of mother of patient she was examined and during her examination it was noticed as "hymen was torn, admitting two fingers and other pelvic examination was normal." As per record patient had a pregnancy of 19 to 20 weeks gestation as reported to J P Memorial hospital with intra uterine dead fetus in the process of abortion. She was got aborted after 45 minutes of admission and was discharged on 30.9.05.
At the time of examination by member of board general condition was fair with signs of breast changes of pregnancy with torn hymen. Patient was 14 years old and an unmarried girl with post mid-trimester inevitable abortion with breast changes of pregnancy with torn hymen. Their Page13/36 14 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT detailed report is Ex.PW 11/A bearing her signature at point A and signature of Dr. Amita Suneja and Dr. Abha Sharma at point B and C.
(xii) PW.12 is finger print expert and deposed that he compared two documents of J P Memorial Hospital bearing thumb impression at point Q1 to Q4 Ex.PW 12/A and 12/B with specimen thumb impression (marked as S1 to S10 of right hand thumb impression and S11 to S20 of left hand thumb) comprising in two sheets Ex.PW 10/A and 10/B and after comparison he gave his opinion vide his report Ex.PW 12/C bearing his signatures at point A wherein it is opined that:
"The questioned thumb impressions marked Q1 to Q4 are inter-se identical and further IDENTICAL with specimen right thumb impression marked AS-1 & AS-2 on the specimen right thumb impression slip of Kumari Mumtiaz d/o Iqbal Hussain."
(xiii) PW13 Dr.S Kohli CMO from GTB Hospital deposed that she had seen the MLC's of patient Mumtiaz and Saleem, both the MLCs were prepared by Dr. Jitender Pratap Singh, JR, who has now left the services of the hospital and his present whereabouts are not known as per official record. She can identify the signature of Dr. Jitender Pratap Singh on the MLC Ex.PW 13/A of Mumtiaz and 13/B of Saleem, both bearing the signatures of Dr. Jitender Pratap Singh at points A. Page14/36 15 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT
(xiv) PW.14 deposed that PW.1 Mumtiaz is his daughter and Manjura is his wife. He had no knowledge if any illegal act was done with his daughter by any one. His wife never told him in this respect . He never visited with his daughter to the police station for registration of the case. He had no knowledge regarding medical examination of his daughter. He further stated that he knew accused Saleem as he was his neighbourer. Other two accused persons present in the court are not known to him and he had not made any statement to the police in respect of the present case.
During cross-examination by Ld. Addl. PP for the state he has not supported the prosecution version however confronted with his statement duly recorded by the IO Ex.PW 14/A.
(xv) PW.15 is the investigating officer of this case and she deposed that on 7/10/05 at about 11 P.M, PW.1 along with her parents came to the police station and got her statement recorded wherein she stated that she had been raped by one Saleem. Her statement was reduced in writing in DD register. She took the prosecutrix at GTB hospital along with her parents. She was got medically examined. Her statement already Ex.PW 1/A was recorded and she made endorsement on the statement of prosecutrix as Ex.PW 15/A and on the basis of statement Page15/36 16 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT and endorsement made by her a case u/sec. 376/506/311/34 IPC was registered at police station Seema Puri vide FIR No. 625/05. She also received the photo copy of the two papers pertaining to ultra sound of prosecutrix from her and were taken in possession vide memo Ex.PW 1/B. Const. Kare Lal reached at there and handed over the copy of FIR and rukka to her. On 8/10/05 accused Saleem was arrested at the instance of mother of prosecutrix from house bearing No. F-24 New Seelam Pur. Accused Saleem was taken to police station, his arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW 3/A and Ex.PW3/B respectively were prepared. Accused Saleem was got medically examined and doctor handed over two sealed pullandas and sample seal to Const. Bharat who handed over the same to her. On 18/10/05 site plan already Ex.PW 1/E was prepared by her at the instance of prosecutrix Mamtiaz. Accused Anwar was arrested on 19/10/05 at the instance of prosecutrix. His arrest memo and personal search memo Ex.PW 5/A and 5/B respectively were prepared. She also recorded the disclosure statement of Anwar Ex.PW. 3/B,in the presence of Const. Ravinder and on 19/10/05 she visited J P Memorial hospital and obtained the photo copy of case sheet/indoor report, consent letter, progress note/clinical note, temperature charge, constant visit record, patients daily expenditure statement and medication report consisting of Page16/36 17 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT ten pages which are duly Ex.PW 5/1 to 5/10. She also prepared the seizure memo of all the documents Ex.PW 15/C bearing her signatures at point A and signature of Dr. Seema Gupta at point B. On 20/10/05 ossification test of prosecutrix Mumtiaz was got done at GTB hospital. On 31/10/05 she recorded the statement of Dr.Veena Pawar u/sec. 161 Cr.P.C and she also obtained the report of ossification test of prosecutrix . On 29/11/05 she again visited J P Memorial hospital and obtained the original papers of photo copies already Ex.PW 5/1 to 5/10. She also obtained the RTI and LTI of prosecutrix Mumtiaz on 29/11/05 in presence of ASI Satya Praksh. The finger prints/thumb impression were sent to Finger Print Bureau for analysis. She also sent the papers Ex.PW 12/A-1 to A-10 to the board of expert for seeking their opinion and obtained the opinion of the board already Ex.PW 11/A. The report of finger print bureau already Ex.PW 12/C. After completion of investigation, she filed the challan u/sec. 173 Cr.P.C to the court of Ld. MM.
During her cross-examination she reiterated her testimony as submitted by her in her examination in chief. Thereafter no witness left to be examined, therefore prosecution evidence was closed and case was fixed for examination of accused persons u/sec. 313 Cr.P.C. Page17/36 18
FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT During the examination of Dr.Seema Gupta she controverted all the incriminating evidence put before her and submitted that she was innocent and falsely implicated in this case. She also stated that neither PW.1 prosecutrix nor PW2 Manjura Bibi/mother of prosecutrix stated any incriminating facts against her. She further submitted that on 27/9/05 she examined patient Mumtaz in her clinic and advised her for ultra sound lower abdomen. On 28/9/05 patient Mumtaz brought to her clinic along with 6-7 persons. She again clinically examined her and observed that patient required immediate abortion due to following reasons:
1. P/V- OS 3.5 cm.
2. 75% effaced.
3. Leaking ++
4. slight bleeding +
5. breech felt with footing coming at vagina &
6. FHR not audible on doppler.
In view of the aforesaid condition of the patient it has become inevitable to conduct the abortion of the patient to save her life and after following the procedure she conducted the process of abortion successfully and this fact is corroborated by medical board vide their report Ex.PW 11/A. She desire to lead defence evidence, therefore, case was fixed for defence vidence.
Page18/36 19 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT
8. Accused Saleem and Anwar during their examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C they also controverted all the allegations as alleged against both of them and submitted that they both are innocent and falsely implicated in this case. They do not want to lead defence evidence, therefore, defence evidence on their behalf was closed, therefore, case was fixed for defence evidence only on behalf of accused Seema Gupta.
9. Dr. Seema Gupta herself appeared as DW1 and deposed that she had passed her MBBS degree in the year 1989 from S.P Medical College Bikanare, Rajesthan and got her registration in the medical council of Delhi in the year 2001 renewed up to 2010. Photo copy of the degree of MBBS and registration certificates are Ex.DW.1/1 and Ex.DW.1/2 respectively (Original seen and returned). She further deposed that she has been working as consultant at J.P Memorial hospital being run by her husband since 1st July 2005. Her husband had applied for seeking approval of a "place" for conducting MTP facilities on 27.7.05. The photo copy of receipt of application form is Ex.DW.1/3. Pursuant to the aforesaid application her husband also received a memorandum dated 4.8.05 thereby her husband was directed to produce the NOC from DDA/MCD, details of emergency drugs and sterilization equipments. Reply to the memorandum was given by her husband intimating thereby that he had applied for seeking NOC from Page19/36 20 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT DDA/MCD and furnished the details of emergency drugs and sterilization equipments. Her husband also filed a writ petition, when he could not obtain the NOC from the civic authority and Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order dt. 9/9/05 passed an injunction order directing thereby that no criminal proceedings due to non compliance of provisions of rule 3 of Delhi Nursing home registration amendment rules 1992 shall be contemplated. Photo copy of the order dt. 9/9/05 is Ex.DW.1/4. Certified copy be shown as per directions. During the pendency of proceedings before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, Ld. CDMO N/E Distt., issued a form B as required under sub rule (6) of rule 5(Certificate of approval) vide order dt. 23.3.2006, photo copy of the form B/ (certificate of approval is Ex.DW.1/5(OSR).
10. She further stated that on 27/9/05 patient Mumtiaz aged about 22 years female was produced before her with alleged history of five months amenorrhoea with leaking P/V. She advised her for ultrasound lower abdomen. She also brought the OPD register being regularly maintained by administrative staff to ensure the visit of patient Mumtaz and in the said register name of the patient bearing at srl. No. 815 on 27/9/05. Photo copy of the page of the OPD register is Ex.DW.1/6(OSR). Next day i.e on 28.9.05 patient Mumtaz again appeared before her with complaint of five months amenorrhoea with Page20/36 21 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT leaking P/V of seven days, bleeding P/V and Labour pain since morning. She examined her as per procedure and record of examination of patient maintained by her is collectively Ex.PW 5/1 to 10. (Original of the same is already placed on record).
11. She further deposed that after completion of formalities and on filling the consent form and after obtaining the consent of patient she got the patient admitted in the Labour room who delivered preterm breech male foetus around 22 weeks IUD at 11.45 a.m. Her proceedings to this effect are at back portion of page on Ex.PW 5/1 to 10. Patient was shifted to the ward where she remained admitted till 8 a.m on 30.9.2005. She also produced Indoor register and patient was shown admitted in the hospital vide entry in the Indoor register at srl. No. 155/9/05. Photo copy of the record of In door register w.e.f 19.9.05 i.e w.e.f from sl. No. 136 to 176 i.e till dt. 8/10/05 which is Ex.DW. 1/7.(OSR). She further stated that during the course of investigation of this case medical board was also constituted and members of the medical board in their report dt. 10/12/2005 clearly opined that as per record of J.P Memorial hospital, the patient presented with inevitable abortion where completion of process of abortion was necessary and their opinion/ report is already Ex. PW 11/A and in view of the aforesaid circumstances she conducted the MTP of the patient with the sole aim to save her life. Page21/36 22 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT During her cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for state she reiterated her testimony as submitted by her during examination in chief and denied the suggestion that she conducted forcible miscarriage of Kumari Mumtaz without the consent of her guardian as she was minor. Thereafter defence evidence was closed and case was fixed for final arguments.
12. Ld. Counsel on behalf of all the accused submitted that before convicting the accused under any penal of law it is duty of the prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and in the present case not even an iota of incriminating facts are brought on record by the prosecution.
13. In support of his contention he submitted that PW1 Kumari Mumtaz was examined before this court on 03.01.07 and on that day she specifically stated that accused Saleem neither misbehaved with her nor committed rape on her. Accused Anwar is the father of accused Saleem. She knows Dr. Seema Gupta and have no grievance against any of the three accused persons present in the court as they never committed any harm to her. Dr. Seema Gupta is well known to her since she had saved her life at the time when she fell down and sustained injuries. While deposing so she totally resiled from her statement and during cross Page22/36 23 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT examination by Ld. Addl. PP for state also she has not supported the prosecution version and specifically stated that statement mark PW1/A was not got recorded by her to the police official and on explaining the statement mark PW1/A she denied having been made any such statement to the police. Prosecutrix PW1 totally confronted from her statement mark PW1/A. She also denied that her supplementary statement mark PW1/F was ever recorded. She also disclosed the name of father of dead child as Dilshad instead of Saleem and during her further cross examination on 29.5.07 she disclosed the name of accused Saleem first time in the court however, on that day also she has no where stated that she has been forcibly raped by accused Saleem and her MTP was got done forcibly and under threat by co accused Anwar father of Saleeem. She also confronted from her statement i.e "JAB MAIN PREGNANT THI, SALEEM KA BAAP MUJHE LEY KAR GAYE THE, DR. SEEMA GUPTA KE PASS LEY KAR GAYA THA, MAIN TO US SAMAY BEHOOSH MAIN THI, SEEMA GUPTA NE US SAMAY MANA KIYA, KE MERI PREGNANCY NAHI GIRAYEGI wherein it was not so recorded in her statement placed on record by the prosecution.
14. PW2 is the mother of prosecutrix Mumtaz and deposed that in the year 2005 when she found her daughter Mumtaz not well, made inquiry Page23/36 24 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT from her. She told her that she had pain in her stomach and received injuries due to fell down. She took her to hospital. Accused Saleem present in the court is her neighbourer. One boy namely Dilshad used to visit the house of Saleem and had developed illicit relationship with her daughter Mumtaz. Doctor gave treatment to her daughter and saved her life. She specifically stated that her daughter Mumtaz never told her about the factum of rape committed by Saleem upon her. She specifically stated that accused Anwar father of Saleem never extended threat on any occasion nor he took her daughter to any clinic for termination of her pregnancy. While deposing so she has also resiled from her statement recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C and during cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP for state she has not supported the prosecution version and specifically stated that her statement Ex. PW2/A was not recorded by the police and on explaining the said statement she denied having been given any such statement to the police. She further stated that her daughter Mumtaz was got admitted in the Nursing Home for two days and before admission of her daughter at the Nursing Home she was suffering from labour pain and bleeding.
15. PW3 is a formal witness. He had joined the investigation with WASI Kusumlata and accused Saleem present in the court was arrested from his house on the pointing out of Smt. Manjura . PW4 is again a formal Page24/36 25 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT witness and deposed that on 8.10.05 he had gone to GTB hospital alongwith accused Saleem for his medical examination. He handed over a sealed pullanda containing blood sample and semen sample to IO vide Ex. PW4/A. PW5 deposed that accused Anwar was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. PW5/A and on that day co accused Dr. Seema Gupta of J.P. Memorial Hospital handed over 10 photostate copies of the papers of indoor record, consent document, investigation record etc. which were taken in possession vide Ex. PW5/C. The photostate documents are Ex. PW5/1 to Ex. PW5/10.
16. PW6 is the doctor who examined prosecutrix vide MLC Ex. PW6/A. PW7 took the prosecutrix at GTB hospital for her medical examination and handed over MLC to IO. PW8 gave opinion with regard to age of the prosecutrix between 14 to 16 yers vide his report Ex. PW8/A. PW9 is the private doctor who conducted ultrasound of Mumtaz (PW1) referred by J.P. Memorial hospital. Report is Ex. PW9/A. PW10 is the police official who joined the investigation. PW11 proved the opinion given by the board constituted by MS GTB hospital. PW12 is the Finger Print Expert who identified the thumb impression of the prosecutrix on the consent form. PW13 identified the hand writing of Dr. Jitender Pratap Singh on the MLC of Mumtaz and Saleem Ex. PW13/A and PW13/B respectively. PW14 is the formal witness and he also turned hostile. PW15 is the IO. Page25/36 26 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT She only testified and corroborated the testimony of other police witnesses and in view of the aforesaid deposition of the prosecution witnesses it has become crystal clear that no incriminating corroborative evidence is brought on record by the prosecution and requested for acquittal of both the accused namely Anwar and Saleem.
17. Ld. counsel on behalf of accused Dr. Seema Gupta submitted that no ingredients to attract the provisions of section 312 IPC and 3, 4 and 5 of Medical Termination Pregnancy Act are brought on record however, the case is squarely covered under the exceptions provided in section 312 of IPC. On perusal of the record produced by DW1 Dr. Seema Gupta and the documents already Ex. PW5/1 to 10 it has become crystal clear that on the day PW1 produced before her with the complaint of five months amenorrhoea with leaking P/V of seven days, bleeding P/V since morning and also with labour pain clearly suggests that patient presented before the doctor with inevitable abortion and process of abortion was very much necessary to save her life and this fact is further corroborated by Dr. Nirja Goel vide Ex. PW11/A and the report is already Ex. PW 11/A and in view of the material brought on record qua the material placed on record by the IO it has become apparent that no ingredients for the offence u/s 312 IPC r/w section 3 and 4 of MTP Act are brought on record by the prosecution. Page26/36 27 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT This view is further fortified that admittedly case was of 22 weeks amenorrhoea and the provisions of MTP Act would not be applicable in the cases of more than 20 weeks amenorrhoea at any stage or in any manner even on the basis of opinion formed in good faith by registered medical practitioner and admittedly in the present case the prosecutrix was pregnant for more than 20 weeks, therefore, the provisions of section 3 and 4 of the MTP Act cannot be extended in the present case.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion it has become crystal clear that no ingredient of the offence as required u/s 312 IPC and section 3 and 4 of MTP Act are proved against accused Dr. Seema Gupta and requested for her acquittal.
19. On the contrary Ld. Addl. PP for state argued the mater against accused Saleem and Anwar and submitted that when PW1 was examined before this court on 3.1.07 she made a statement under pressure and when she was sent to Nari Niketan and was cross examined on 29.5.07 she disclosed all the true facts before the court and clearly stated that when on 3.1.07 she came to this court accused Anwar told her not to disclose the name of his son Saleem but instead of Saleem she was directed to give name of one Dilshad and under the pressure of accused Anwar she had given the name of Dilshad instead Page27/36 28 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT of accused Saleem. During cross examination she further stated that "JAB MAIN PREGNANT THI, SALEEM KA BAAP MUJHE LEY KAR GAYE THE, DR. SEEMA GUPTA KE PASS LEY KAR GAYA THA, MAIN TO US SAMAY BEHOOSH MAIN THI, SEEMA GUPTA NE US SAMAY MANA KIYA, KE MERI PREGNANCY NAHI GIRAYEGI at that time Anwar father of Saleem extended threat of killing her and her family members in case she would not got her pregnancy terminated. She also deposed that name of father of my dead child is Saleem who is accused present in the court and not Dilshad which clearly goes to show that PW1 became pregnant due to sexual assault /sexual intercourse committed by accused Saleem on her. Admittedly her pregnancy was terminated in the hospital and at that time she was below 16 years of age in such circumstances it cannot be said that accused Saleem had not committed rape upon PW1 and accused Anwar father of accused Saleem had not given threat for terminating her pregnancy. In view of cross examination dated 29.5.07 it has become crystal clear that prosecution succeeded in proving the ingredients to attract the provisions of section 376/506 IPC against accused Saleem and section 312/506/34 IPC against accused Anwar father of accused Saleem.
20. With regard to the contention raised by Ld. Counsel on behalf of accused Dr. Seema Gupta it is alleged that on the day of terminating the Page28/36 29 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT pregnancy, the 'place' where MTP was done was not a recognized place and the license for conducting the MTP was obtained after the day of commission of offence. It is further pleaded that Dr. Seema Gupta was not a qualified gynecologist having no degree in Obstetrics and Gynecologist and was having mere experience of one year as Junior resident from GTB hospital and this qualifications is not a requisite qualifications as provided under the provisions of MTP Act. No sufficient ingredients to bring the facts of this case within the purview of exceptions given in section 312 IPC are brought on record by the accused therefore, prosecution succeeded in proving the ingredients of offence as alleged against accused Dr. Seema Gupta and requested for seeking conviction of all the accused for the ofences for which they are charged.
21. After hearing arguments on behalf of Ld. Counsel for both the parties I carefully perused the provisions of section 312 IPC which reads thus :
"Causing miscarriage - Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, shall, if such, miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine or with both; and , if the woman be quick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.Page29/36 30
FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT Explanation - A woman who causes herself to miscarry, is within the meaning of this section."
22. Wherein it appears that if the miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman is only punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years or fine or with both but in the present case sufficient material is brought on record showing thereby that MTP was done in good faith for the purpose of saving life of woman as she was produced before Dr. Seema Gupta with the alleged history of 20/22 weeks amenorrhoea, labour pain, bleeding since morning and this fact is further corroborated by virtue of report of medical board wherein it is clearly opined that patient presented with inevitable abortion where completion of process of abortion was necessary and said report is already Ex. PW11/A. Factum of presence of bleeding and suffering due to labour pain is further corroborated by PW2 Manjura, mother of prosecutrix as she clearly stated that before seeking admission of her daughter at Nursing Home she was having bleeding and was suffering from labour pain. All these facts clearly goes to show that termination of pregnancy had become a compulsive necessity of patient Mumtaz to save her life and with the sole aim to save her life MTP was got done by Dr. Seema Gupta. In such circumstances I am of the considered view that no ingredients for the offence u/s 312 IPC are brought on record by Page30/36 31 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT the prosecution.
23. Before making any observation with regard to ingredients of offence u/s 3,4 and 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act for which Dr. Seema Gupta is charged I would like to go through the provisions of section 3 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act which reads thus :
"3. When pregnancies may be terminated by registered medical practitioners (1)Notwithstanding anything contained in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), a registered medical practitioner shall not be guilty of any offence under that Code or under any other law for the time being in force, if any pregnancy is terminated by him in accordance with the provisions of this Act.
(2)Subject to the provisions of sub section (4) pregnancy may be terminated by a registered medical practitioner.
(a)Where the length of the pregnancy does not exceed twelve weeks, if such medical practitioner is, or
(b)Where the length of the pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are, of opinion, formed in goods faith that-
(i) the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health, or
(ii)there is a substantial risk that if the children were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental Page31/36 32 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
Explanation 1: Where any pregnancy is alleged by the pregnant woman to have been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such pregnancy shall be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.
Explanation II:Where any pregnancy occurs as a result of failure of any device or method used by any married woman or her husband for the purpose of limiting the number of children, the anguish caused by such unwanted pregnancy may be presumed to constitute a grave injury to the mental health of the pregnant woman.
3. In determining whether the continuance of a pregnancy would involve such risk of injury to the health as is mentioned in sub section (2), account may be taken of the pregnant women's actual or reasonably forseeable environment.
24. On perusal of clause (b) of sub section (2) of section (3) of MTP Act pregnancy may be terminated by the registered medical practitioner where the length of pregnancy exceeds twelve weeks but does not exceed twenty weeks, if not less than two registered medical practitioners are of opinion formed in goods faith that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve a risk to the life of the pregnant woman or of grave injury to her physical or mental health, or secondly there is a substantial risk that if the children were born, it would suffer from such Page32/36 33 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. Only on perusal of the aforesaid provisions it has become crystal clear that cases of termination of pregnancy exceeding twenty weeks can not be considered within the purview of provisions of MTP Act. However, after extension of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act 1971 it has become expedient to read section 312 IPC with the provisions of MTP Act under which besides the ground that abortion is necessary to save the woman's life, other grounds are also prescribed, which makes the scope of termination of pregnancy more wider that section 312 IPC therefore, doctor at the time of termination of pregnancy can also exercise her option of provisions of MTP Act but in the present case neither the accused Seema Gupta shown her intention to take the help of the provisions of MTP Act however, she specifically pleaded that she terminated the pregnancy of PW1 with the sole aim to save her life as it was inevitable for her to continue with the pregnancy. In view of the provisions of MTP Act I am of the considered view that prosecution also failed to brought on record and to prove the offence under MTP Act for which accused is charged.
25. On perusal of the testimony of PW1 recorded at the time of examination of prosecutrix on 3.1.07 she specifically stated that none of the accused has committed offence with her however she disclosed the Page33/36 34 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT name of one Dilshad who had committed sexual intercourse with her due to that she became pregnant and this fact is further corroborated by PW2 mother of prosecutrix as she specifically stated that Dilshad establishes illicit relationship with her and due to said act she became pregnant and her pregnancy were got terminated by co accused Dr. Seema Gupta with the sole aim to save her life. During her cross examination after the lapse of about one and half year she disclosed that only at the instance of Anwar she disclosed the name of Dilshad instead of Saleem on 3.1.07 and she further stated that Saleem was the father of her dead child. In the absence of any corroborative evidence the testimony of prosecutrix does not inspire confidence is not sufficient to convict the accused for the offence as alleged against them. During cross examination she also confronted from her statement mark PW1/A wherein it was not recorded that JAB MAI PREGNANT THEE ETC as discussed. PW2 mother of prosecutrix specifically stated that neither Anwar nor Saleem nor Dr. Seema Gupta has committed any wrongful act with her daughter. No threats were ever extended by accused Anwar at any time. PW2 no where stated that her daughter made a statement before the court under pressure or threat on 3.1.07. Age of the prosecutrix is also opined as between 14-16 years. In such circumstances I am of the considered view that accused Saleem and Anwar both have become entitled to be given them the benefit of doubt. Page34/36 35 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT Accordingly, benefit of doubt be given to both the accused persons. Accused Saleem s/o Anwar is acquitted for the offence u/s 342/376/506 IPC and accused Anwar s/o Bandu is acquitted for the offence u/s 312/34 r/w 506 and Dr. Seema Gupta w/o Dr. Ashok Gupta is acquitted for the offence u/s 312/34 IPC r/w section 3,4 & 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act as alleged against her. Their bail bonds/surety bonds shall remain in force till the expiry of six months as provided u/s 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to the record room.
(B.S. CHUMBAK) ASJ-3/North East District KKD/Delhi Announced in the open court on 24.04.10 Page35/36 36 FIR NO. 620/05; STATE VS. SALEEM ETC; PS SEEMA PURI; U/S 342/376/ 312/506/34 IPC R/W SEC. 3,4 & 5 OF MTP ACT FIR No. 620/05 PS Seema Puri 24.0410 Present: Ms. Neelam Narang Ld. A, ddl. PP for state.
All accused are on bail.
Vide separate detailed order benefit of doubt is given to accused Saleem and Anwar, therefore, accused Saleem s/o Anwar is acquitted for the offence u/s 342/376/506 IPC and accused Anwar s/o Bandu is acquitted for the offence u/s 312/34 r/w 506 IPC and Dr. Seema Gupta is also acquitted for the offence u/s 312/34 IPC r/w section 3,4 & 5 of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act as alleged against them. Their bail bonds/surety bonds shall remain in force till the expiry of six months as provided u/s 437 A Cr.P.C. File be consigned to the record room.
(B.S. CHUMBAK) ASJ-3/North East District KKD/Delhi/24.04.10 Page36/36