Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. This case was committed by ld. MM vide order dated 28.02.2011 wherein it was observed that as per certified copy of High Court order dt. 19.05.2004 the marriage of complainant with accused no.1 is null and void. It has further been observed for the offence u/s 406 IPC that there is not even a single allegation in the entire complaint regarding entrustment of dowry articles to any of the accused persons or their non return on demand of the complainant. Thus, ld. MM observed that offence u/s 498­A IPC and 406 IPC are not attracted in the present case. Ld. MM further observed with regard to offence u/s 312 IPC which provides punishment for causing miscarriage that in the present case complainant has specifically stated in her complaint that she was forced to get an abortion done by the accused persons. Hence, ld. MM found that her abortion was got done without the consent of complainant and on finding a prima facie case for the offence u/s 313 IPC in place of section 312 IPC, this case was committed to the court of Sessions since, section 313 IPC is triable by the Court of Sessions.

312. 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. Explanation.­­A woman who causes herself to miscarry, is within the meaning of section.

313. Causing miscarriage without woman's consent.­­Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with 11[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

315. Act done with intent to prevent child being born alive or to cause it to die after birth.­­Whoever before the birth of any child does any act with the intention of thereby preventing that child from being born alive or causing it to die after its birth, and docs by such act prevent that child from being born alive, or causes it to die after its birth, shall, if such act be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the mother, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, or with fine, or with both.'

(b) Save as other wise provided in clause (a), no pregnancy shall be terminated except with the consent of the pregnant woman."

1. In the case in hand it has categorically come on record vide deposition of PW1 Tajinder Kaur that voluntarily her abortion was got done at the clinic of Dr. Shanta Kaul on 18.05.2001 after having came to know that complainant has conceived female fetus. It is also an admitted fact from both sides that abortion was done vide Consent Form Ex.PW1/D4. The fact of consent given by PW1 Tajinder Kaur, complainant for abortion has already been discussed at length in the preceding para 30, which shows that her consent appears to have been impacted by some involuntarily elements as she was under the dominance of accused Mahender Singh and his family members. So long as the role of Dr. Shanta Kaul is concerned, in this regard section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act empowers the registered medical practitioners to cause pregnancy terminated in provisions of this Act. In this regard section 3 of the Act as mentioned above reveals that subject to the provisions of sub­action (4), a 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. As per deposition of PW1 complainant Smt. Tajinder Kaur it has come on record that pregnancy of female fetus was of 8 weeks and this fact of 8 weeks is not affected therefore, consent of the PW1 was required but in the cross­ examination it has come on record that consent of PW1 appears to have been impacted by some external affairs as she was in the dominance of her husband accused Mahender Singh and his family members. Besides, on perusal of the case file it reveals that vide Ex.PW1/D1 i.e. page from the Diary dated 14.05.2001 whereby Complainant/ PW1 Tajinder Kaur herself went to Dr. Kaul clinic and stated his last menstrual period dated 18.03.2001 and reason of abortion was stated herself by Complainant "for limiting to one child". The Ex.PW1/D2 i.e. page from the diary of Dr. Kaul dated 16.05.2001 wherein reason of abortion was given by her was failure contraceptive (condom). The Ex.PW1/D3 i.e. Page from the diary of Dr. Kaul dated 17.05.2001 in which complainant has given consent in which two months pregnancy is stated and patient is clinically fit. All these facts and circumstances go to the root of this case that to terminate the female fetus accused Mahender got done abortion of complainant PW1 Tajinder Kaur at the clinic of accused Dr. Shanta Kaul on 18.05.2001 and the consent given by PW1 Tajinder Kaur does not appear voluntarily. Presuming for the sake of argument that the termination took place on account of consent given by PW 1 victim complainant Smt. Tajinder Kaur but nothing has come on record which goes to suggest that continuance of the pregnancy would involve any risk to the life of PW1 Tajinder Kaur or of grave injury to her physical or mental health. Besides, there is no substantial risk that if the child born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. The plea taken by the ld. Counsel for accused persons that abortion was got done in accordance with Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, does not come to the rescue of the accused persons precisely for the reasons that her consent for termination of pregnancy does not appear voluntarily vide deposition of PW1 Tajinder Kaur, complainant. Apart from this even with the consent of complainant the offence of termination of pregnancy is completed unless some risk of life or danger to life of child is involved. In light of these facts and circumstances, it can easily be inferred that an abortion of PW1 Tajinder Kaur was got done by accused Mahender at the clinic of Dr. Shanta Kaul on 18.05.2001 and this miscarriage has been caused in absence of good faith of PW1 Tajinder Kaur. Therefore, in absence of clear cut consent or with the consent unless danger to life and to a child is on record, the offence u/s 312 IPC is proved beyond reasonable doubt against both the accused persons.