SUREKHA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH JAMAKHANDI TOWN POLICE REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor. The appellant was the accused before the trial Court and had been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 313 and 314 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'I.P.C.', for brevity) and sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 313 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Simple imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/ - for the offence punishable under Section 314 of the IPC. It is that, which is challenged in the present appeal.

(2.) THE facts leading up to this appeal are as follows: The Jamakhandi Town Police had registered a case against the appellant, on 11.11.2006 at about 8.15 pm, in Crime No. 170/2006, on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Shyam, Son of Shivappa Telagadi of Jamakhandi, alleging that, about 12 days prior to the complaint., his sister Bharathi, who was said to be a devadasi, had complained of stomach pain and she was admitted to the hospital of the present appellant, with a complaint that she was pregnant and was bleeding heavily. The appellant, on examination of Bharati, had informed the complainant and his mother that, she would have to undergo termination of pregnancy and that the pregnancy was of about 2 1/2 months. It is further alleged that, without obtaining their consent, she had proceeded to induce abortion on the victim. It was as a result of a partial abortion having carried out, the sister of the complainant, who was bleeding heavily already, continued to bleed and though she was under treatment of the accused, at the home of the complainant for four days thereafter, there was no improvement. Since the bleeding did not stop, at the instance of the appellant, the victim was admitted to the private hospital of one Dr. G. R. Tamagond, namely, Basaveshwar Private Hospital at Jamakhandi. She underwent treatment at that hospital for several days i.e. from 06.11.2006 to 09.11.2006 and she was discharged from the said hospital, as her condition did not improve. She was then admitted to Mission Hospital, Miraj, but she had succumbed at 11.00 am on 11.11.2006 at that hospital. It is on the basis of the said complaint, that the police had registered a case and the Magistrate having taken cognizance of the same, the appellant was charge sheeted and later committed the case to the Court of District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot. The charges having been framed by the Sessions Court for offences punishable under Sections 313 and 314 of the IPC, and the accused having pleaded not guilty and having claimed to be tried, the prosecution had examined 21 witnesses and produced Exhibits P1 to P34 and marked 12 material objects. After recording the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to 'Cr.P.C.', for brevity) and on hearing the accused as well as the prosecution, the Court below had framed the following points for consideration:

(3.) ON the other hand, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would seek to justify the findings of the Court below and would draw attention to the evidence of PW15 to the effect that, it was certainly on account of an incomplete abortion carried out on the victim, that further complications had developed and that, she had ultimately succumbed. He would also bring to attention, the opinion expressed by the pathologist - PW9, who had performed the post -mortem examination to the effect that, it was possible that, death could occur on account of an un -professional abortion carried out and as a result of infection on account of the injuries caused in the process and had also expressed that, pieces of human flesh were present in the uterus. Further that, there were incriminating material, such as stethoscope and other medical implements, that were recovered from the so called hospital premises of the appellant, apart from 72 documents, namely, case papers, where similar procedures had been carried out on other female patients, which clearly indicated that, the appellant was indulging in unauthorized termination of pregnancies. The present case on hand is one, which had resulted in the death of the victim. Therefore, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would seek to justify the judgment of the Court below.