NADEEM TARIK Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and learned AGA for the State.

(2.) This criminal revision is filed against the order dtd. 24/8/2022 passed in sessions trial no.106 of 2019 (State vs. Nadeem Tarik) crime no.49 of 2014 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/ FTC court no.1. By the impugned order, the learned trial court has rejected the application 47 ka filed by accused U/s 216 Cr.P.C.

(3.) The revisionist is accused in the sessions trial. Charge-sheet was submitted U/s 498A, 323, 504, 506 and 3(1) v IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act. Charges were also framed against the revisionist-accused. Trial commenced. After recording the statement of P.W.-4 Dr. Mursarat Mujeeb, an application U/s 216 Cr.P.C. was filed by the accused alleging therein that it has come on the record that no act has been done with intent to prevent child being born alive or to cause it to die after birth. The testimony of P.W.-4, Dr. Mursarat Mujeeb clearly discloses that no abortion was done by her. She has admitted that she has not done any abortion or admitted complainant/ victim. It is clear that false allegations were imputed by the complainant. From the cross-examination of P.W.-4, it is evident that incident of any abortion of child killing or any cruelty as stated in the FIR is vague, false and fictitious and no such incident ever occurred. In the present case, specifically in contest of sec. 315 Cr.P.C. was imputed upon the so called observation of doctor P.W.-4 and the doctor has clearly stated about non abortion, non injury and non criminal activity towards the patient and consequently question on apprehension of any activity having nexus with sec. 315 IPC itself vanishes. Henceforth, in the above noted facts and circumstances of the charge U/s 315 IPC is to be altered.