STATE Vs. JOAQUIM ANTONIO DSILVA ALIAS A DSILVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent was tried for the death of Sajida Bi aged 18 years while causing miscarriage under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code. THE prosecution had examined 8 witnesses in support of the charge. THE respondent was acquitted of the charge by impugned Judgment and state has come in appeal against the said acquittal.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case is that the respondent had caused the death of Sajida Bi aged about18 years while terminating the pregnancy in his clinic unauthorisedly. The death is reported to have taken place on 28th November 1989 at about11. 30 a. m. . The respondent came to the house of Sajida Bi on the same day at about5. 30 p. m. and informed her father Sayed Abdul Rahim P. W. 3 that she had expired in his clinic at about10. 30 a. m. . Sayed Abdul Rahim P. W. 3 wanted that the postmortem of Sajida Bi be conducted and the respondent told him that it will take three days and the dead body will start smelling. The respondent agreed to give death certificate. The respondent handed over a letter to P. W. 3 According to P. W. 3, in the certificate, the cause of death was shown as low blood pressure and jaundice. In the circumstances, F. I. R. was lodged with the police by Shaikh Abdul Wahab P. W. 2, who is nephew of P. W. 3 Sayed Abdul Rahim. The F. I. R. was lodged at 10. 30 p. m. on the same day. The investigation into the matter was conducted by the police and the respondent was put up for trial for the offence under Section 314 I. P. C.

(3.) THE undisputed facts are that the death of Sajida Bi aged about18 year took place at the clinic of respondent and his father and that at about5. 30 p. m. the respondent informed P. W. 3 Sayed Abdul Rahim that Sajida Bi had died in his clinic. THE defence of the respondent is Sajida Bi had approached him with severe pain and he gave her one injection Anafortem; he told Sunil Nayak, who was accompanying her to take care but had not returned; Sajida Bi was crying with severe pain, as a result of which he gave saline injection after which she collapsed. This defence is found in answer to question 55 put under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code to the respondent. In this statement he has also stated that he has neither issued certificate Exhibit P. W. 1/c nor certificate Exhibit P. W. 1/d; that the rubber stamp as well as the board which were attached by the police do not belong to him but the same belong to his father.