STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. KASHIBEN SHANTILAL PANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this appeal, the appellant -State has challenged the judgment and order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the learned Special Judge, Fast Track Court No.2, Dahod in Special Case No.6 of 2004, whereby the accused was acquitted of the charge for offence under Sections 312 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code as well as offence under Sections 7, 12, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and offence under Sections 34 and 35 of the Medical Practitioners' Act.

(2.) SHORT facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as under: -

(3.) MS .Bhatt, learned APP submitted that the learned Judge ought to have seen that there are direct and indirect evidence connecting the respondent with the crime and without appreciating oral as well as documentary evidence on record, learned trial Judge straightaway arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused. She submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of the complainant Parvatsinh Kalubhai Palas at Exh.5, wherein he has clearly deposed that wife of the complainant was aborted by accused who was residing in the quarters situated near Limkheda Government Hospital. The complainant also identified the accused before the Court as well as stated that the respondent -accused has also demanded Rs.200/ - for performing this abortion. Thus, looking to the evidence of the complainant, it is clear that though the accused was not having required qualification as Gynecologist, she has performed abortion of the wife of the complainant and thereby caused fatal injuries to victim -Lalitaben and she was compelled to take private treatment from doctors. She also submitted that victim Lalitaben has also deposed that she along with Ujiben and Kantaben had gone to the residence of the accused and the accused had given treatment for abortion at her residence by taking Rs.200/ -. She has also deposed since there was severe complication, she has taken treatment from private doctors. Learned APP further submitted that the learned trial Judge has not properly appreciated the evidence of Ujiben Kalubhai, Exh.28 and Kantaben Kalubhai Palas, Exh.29. Both these witnesses have deposed that they have gone with victim Lalitaben at the residence of the accused and victim Lalitaben has stated before these witnesses the fact that the accused has recovered Rs.200/ - from her towards abortion.