Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. On the other hand, Mr. Ray, leaned AGA for the State would submit that the victim lodged the F.I.R. marked as Ext.11 and she narrated her ordeal therein and all the events happened, till the same was lodged. It is contended that the victim was subjected to rape and thereafter, sexually exploited by the petitioner making her medical condition critical with a failed abortion and hence, the learned court below did not commit any illegality in confirming the order of conviction and sentence for the alleged offences. It is contended that the victim did not have the consent or it was not a consent in the eye of law as such consent was obtained from her on the promise of marriage in future and hence, for the sexual mischief committed by the petitioner, he has been rightly held guilty for an act of rape and also abortion as such miscarriage was caused by him without her consent, an offence, which is punishable under Section 313 IPC. It is also contended that there has been no delay in lodging of the F.I.R. and when the petitioner did not agree for marriage with the victim, who had by then been sexually exploited by him, it was reported to the local police and hence, such delay whatever has occasioned has been reasonably explained. The evidence on record received from the side of the prosecution, according to Mr. Ray, learned AGA, was correctly appreciated by the learned courts below and ultimately, with the satisfaction reached at that there is involvement of the petitioner and him having committed rape on the victim and also caused her miscarriage besides other mischief having taken place rightly convicted under Section 376,313,417 and 506 IPC, which was confirmed in appeal, hence, not to be interfered with thereby dismissing the revision for being devoid of any merit.

11. As regards, the offence under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the evidence reveals that P.W.16 had taken the tablets and it was given to her by the petitioner. Though, P.W.16 was cross- examined by the defence, nothing could be elicited from her denying the above claim. It is admittedly a fact that P.W.16 developed medical complications having taken tablets for abortion. It is denied by the petitioner that any such mischief was committed by him involving P.W.16. From the record, it is made to reveal that the defence attempted to create an impression about P.W.16 having relationship with someone else but no evidence has been adduced to substantiate any such plea of the petitioner. The evidence of P.W.14 is that he had issued the discharge ticket in favour of P.W.16, who had been admitted at the VSS Medical College & Hospital, Burla on 26 th May, 2006 as an indoor patient till 8th June, 2006. It is deposed by P.W.14 that the victim had problem of septic abortion and in course of diagnosis, her abdomen was filled with pus, which had to be removed after surgical intervention. According to P.W.14, the stitches were removed on 6th June, 2006 and thereafter, P.W.16 was discharged. The discharge ticket has been marked as Ext.8 with a signature of P.W.14 thereon as Ext.8/1 and claimed that she had abortion before being admitted in the Ward. In course of cross-examination, P.W.14 confirmed that it was a case of septic abortion of pregnancy of P.W.16. It has been clarified by P.W.14 during further cross- examination that the intake of tablets by P.W.16 was the cause behind abortion of pregnancy. It has been deposed further that if the abortion is incomplete, there may be infection and accumulation of pus. The evidence of P.W.14 is clear enough to reach at a conclusion that P.W.16 was admitted as an indoor patient and was treated for infection arising out of abortion and complications thereof. It has been the evidence of P.W.16 that she was given 12 tablets by the petitioner and after having consumed the same, the complication started and hence, she was admitted in the hospital. Such evidence of P.W.14 is corroborated by P.W.17, an Assistant Surgeon at DHH, Balangir. P.W.16 was taken to the hospital at Balangir in the month of May, 2006 and was admitted there as an indoor patient and as per P.W.17 on a clinical diagnosis, it was revealed that she had a medical condition for incomplete abortion with Acute Renal Failure (ARF). According to P.W.17, there was septic abortion due to outside interference and hence, P.W.16 was referred to VSS Medical College & Hospital, Burla for further treatment and proved the discharge slip dated 20th May, 2006 as Ext. 12 and his signature thereon as Ext.12/1. The pathological report has been proved as Ext.13 by P.W.17 and signature of doctor appearing therein as Ext.13/1. In course of cross-examination, P.W.17 elicited that P.W.16 was suffering from ARF and possibly related to incomplete abortion but claimed that he did not ascertain the cause of septic abortion. From the above evidence, it is made clear that P.W.16 had a medical condition for septic abortion and apparently on account of having consumed tablets given to her by the petitioner and none else. So, it can be said that the petitioner risked the life of P.W.16 and in an attempt to avoid her being pregnant had given tablets for causing miscarriage apparently without the latter's consent. But the question is an offence under Section 313 I.P.C. is shown to have been made out provided the miscarriage has been caused without the women's consent. The definition of "causing miscarriage"