LAXAMIKANTCHAURASIA ALIAS ANDKARAMLALYADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 20th September, 1994 passed by Shri Vyasdeo Mandal, 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 176 of 1986 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted appellant Laxami Kant Chaurasia alias Dr. Laxami Kant Chaurasia for the offence under section 314 of the Indian Penal Code and has sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years. Accused-appellant Dr. Chaurasia has also been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment of the same to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. Accused-appellant Karamlal Yadav has been convicted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge for the offences under sections 376 and 314/109 of the Indian Penal Code. For the offence under section 376, I.P.C. the said accused-appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years. For the offence under section 314/109 I.P.C. he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years and has been further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default of payment, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. The sentences passed against the accused appellant Karamlal Yadav have been ordered to run concurrently by the learned Trial Court.

(2.) One Janeshwari Mandal, the father of the victim girl, is the informant of this case. As it appears from the order dated 18.7.1991 of the Trial Court, the said informant died during the course of trial and hence he has not been examined by the prosecution as a witness. The case of the prosecution is that accused-appellant Karamlal Yadav is a rich man of the village and is a neighbour of the informant. The informant was working as agricultural labour of accused-appellnat Karamlal Yadav and the informant's daughter, Madho Kumari (deceased) aged about 14 to 15 years was serving as maid servant in the house of appellant Karamlal Yadav and used to go to the field for tending his cow. The deceased Madho Kumari was unmarried and she developed illicit connection with accused-appellant Karamlal Yadav and became pregnant. Madho Kumari (deceased) informed her mother Nunudai (P.W.I) about the pregnancy. About for days prior to the date on which the F.I.R. was lodged, her mother Nunudai requested accused-appellant Karamlal Yadav for marrying the deceased but Karamlal Yadav refused to do so. However, he assured her (P.W.I) that he would get operation of abortion performed. On 15.7.84 at about 8. P.M. in the night Karamlal Yadav came to the house of the informant and asked his wife Nunudai (P.W.1) to take her daughter Madho Kumari (deceased) to the dispensary of a doctor at Bharahi for abortion. The said accused-appellant took Nunudai (P.W.I) and the informant's daughter (deceased) to Dr. Laxmi Kant Chaurasia (appellant No. 1) for abortion. The informant could not accompany them as he was engaged in attending a feast at the residence of his maternal brother. At about 2.00 A.M. in the night informant's wife (P.W.1) and his nephew Sukhdeo Mandal (P.W.2) came to the residence of the informant with the dead body of Madho Kumari on a rickshaw. The wife of the informant informed him that accused-appellant Karamlal Yadav took her deceased daughter to the dispensary of Dr. Chaurasia where a nurse with a person was present and Dr. Chaurasia started operation with the help of the said nurse and the unknown person. During the course of operation the child was taken out from the abdomen in small pieces but in course of operation Madho Kumari died. Appellant Karamlal Yadav is said to have warned the wife of the informant not to divulge the fact to anyone in the village and requested him to cremate the body of the deceased, but the informant's wife was not agreeable to it. The matter was reported to the police on 16.7.84 and on the basis of fardbeyan (Ext. 2) of the informant Madhepura P.S. case No. 139 dated 16.7.84 under sections 376,313 and 314 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused-appellants as well as against the nurse and her companion, after investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellants and the said nurse, namely, Manju Devi but Manju Devi was ultimately discharged and only the appellants faced the trial and were convicted and sentenced as mentioned above.

(3.) The defence of the accused-appellants is the denial of their guilt. It is also their case that they have been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of their enemies Jiwachha Yadav and Ram Kishun Mandal.