Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

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 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).

8. I have perused the records of the case and heard the contentions raised at the bar.

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:

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.