Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5.3.1 Learned Advocate Mr. Panchal raised apprehension that pending criminal proceeding, the registration of the hospital/centre would be cancelled or suspended effecting the livelihood of applicant.

5.4 Learned Advocate Mr. Harshadkumar Panchal contended that the learned Judge has not appreciated the ingredients of Section 313 and 315 of the IPC where no single material on record or the proof relied upon by the prosecution connects the applicant with the offence. Advocate Mr. Panchal submitted that it was a decoy trap and thus, there could not be any case of causing miscarriage without the woman's consent as provided under Section 313 nor would be a case of any act done with an intent to prevent child being born alive or to NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1354/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined cause it to die after birth as provided under Section 313 and 315 of the IPC. Advocate Mr. Panchal further stated that the statement of the witnesses recorded by the police as provided under the charge-sheet does not make the case as alleged by the prosecution, thus, made a prayer to set aside the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge below Exh.58 and to discharge the applicant from Sessions Case No.11 of 2015 allowing the application Exh.58.

6. Per contra, learned APP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt submitted that it is not only the case of decoy trap but a complaint by the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate before the police on 27.11.2012 to make further investigation in connection with the complaint given by her, where the trap disclosed the offence under the PC&PNDT Act. Further, it was noticed that the accused doctor was not maintaining the record in the hospital as mandated by the PC&PNDT Act and therefore, it was necessary to make further investigation to dig in and find out whether any case was found of causing miscarriage, and any criminal act of the applicant. APP Ms. Bhatt submitted that the police in the investigation by recording the statements of the witnesses and the victim could find that the accused had committed the offence of causing miscarriage without the woman's consent and that the accused as a doctor was found to be indulged in the acts of preventing the child from being born alive and such acts were not in a good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, but was only after the sex determination of the foetus, the foetus were removed so NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1354/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined that no girl child would be born.

18.1 As noted under para 21.3 of the judgment referred of Jayant (supra) for the commission of offence under IPC, the Magistrate having jurisdiction can take the cognizance of the said offence without awaiting for the complaint of the authorised person under the MMDR Act.

19. Section 24 of the PC&PNDT Act draws presumption against the husband and relatives and it would be considered that the husband or any other relative as the case may be, had compelled the pregnant woman to undergo prenatal diagnostic techniques for the purposes other than those specified in sub-section (2) of Section 4 and such person NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.RA/1354/2024 JUDGMENT DATED: 06/04/2026 undefined would be liable for the abetment of offence under sub-section (3) of Section 23. The Court concerned can verify the facts of the case on the private complaint filed under PC&PNDT Act, but, here in this case, the matter was lodged on the basis of decoy trap where there would not be any case of drawing presumption under Section 24 of the PC&PNDT Act for the decoy witness, however, the I.O has, on the investigation by the private complaint, had recorded the statements of the other women who were there on that day and the husbands and the relatives concerned who had brought pregnant woman and the I.O had found that the pregnant women were subjected to miscarriage without their consent and therefore found the present revisionist liable for the offence under Section 313 and 315 of the IPC, where the doctor has been alleged of causing miscarriage without woman's consent with an intention to prevent the child from being born alive, without any good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother. The provision under Section 313 and 315 read with Section 114 of the IPC has been independently lodged by the I.O.