BHOLA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment dated 2.8.95, passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 94/90 whereby the appellant Bhola alias Shiv Kumar Choubey has been convicted u/s 314 I.P.C. and sentenced to 8 years R.I. and also a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. In default of fine, he has been sentenced to R.I. for one year.

(2.) THE prosecution story, in short, is that Satyawati, resident of Village Daundi, district Durg, was an unmarried lady aged about 22 years. She had illicit relations with her brother -in -law and thereby she became pregnant. On or about 3.8.89, she was pregnant for about four months. It was further alleged that the appellant was the family physician of Satyawati and, therefore, Satyawati wanted to cause abortion and required the appellant to administer certain injection for that purpose. The case of the prosecution is that after the appellant administered some injection or some drug, health of Satyawati became bad and, therefore, she was shifted to Pushpa Hospital, Dalli Rajhara. There she was treated by Dr. Sunita Goverdhan (PW -10), who found that Satyawati was suffering from septicaemia on account of wrong treatment given by the Doctor treating her. Doctor Sunita then made a report to the police regarding the health of Satyawati by marked as Ex. P -1. Subsequently Satyawati was discharged from the Pushpa Hospital and she was taken to district hospital, Durg where she died on 14.8.89. The intimation of unnatural death was given to the Police Station, Daundi by Ex. P -11 and after investigation an F.I.R. Ex. P -9 was lodged. The police required by Ex. P -8 -A to perform post -mortem on the body of the deceased and Doctor M.L. Jain (PW -12) performed post -mortem. In the opinion of Doctor, Satyawati died on account of septic abortion caused to her by administering to her some injection or by some drug. At the time of her death, there was considerable septicaemia. Prior to her death, Dr. B.L. Wadhwani (PW -5) had also examined her and he had given a report Ex. P -1. In his opinion also the cause of her illness of the deceased Satyawati was septicaemia. After investigation a challan was filed against the appellant and he was charged u/s 314 I.P.C.

(3.) IN this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant urged that there is absolutely no evidence on record for connecting the appellant with the offence u/s 314 I.P.C. In my opinion the contention of the learned counsel is correct and it is accepted. The prosecution has examined Dowari Bai, who does not say anything about administration of injection to Satyawati. All that she says in her evidence is that the appellant administered a capsule for curing her from fever. In cross -examination she says that the appellant did not administer any drug for the purpose of abortion. The evidence of Ksheer Sagar is also that the appellant had given a capsule to Satyawati. On the day he gave capsule to Satyawati, nothing happened. Next day there was an abortion. She is unable so say who caused the abortion to Satyawati. Rambha Bai (PW -4), in her evidence, says that Satyawati was administered a drug by Dowari Bai (PW -1) and not by the Doctor. She further says that the Doctor must have given her the drug, but she is not very positive about it. All that she says is that when Satyawati delivered a dead child, the accused came there to help her, but she does not know any act on the part of the accused for which he is liable for commission of offence u/s 314 I.P.C.