GUWAHATI, India, Dec. 14 -- Gauhati High Court issued the following order on Nov. 13:

1. Heard Mr. Anisul Alam, learned counsel for the accused appellant. Also heard Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No.36/2012, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (Seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further six months.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased, who was about eight months pregnant, had requested the appellant to assist her in terminating the pregnancy as she was already a mother of five children and did not desire to continue the pregnancy. The appellant, without any medical qualification or authority, attempted to terminate the pregnancy by inserting a root-like object into her womb. After the foetus died, the appellant inserted a fishing hook into the private parts of the deceased to pull out the pieces of the unborn child.

4. The informant (PW-1), the sister-in-law of the deceased, on hearing the cries of the deceased, reached the spot and found the appellant pulling out flesh pieces with a hook while the deceased repeatedly cried in pain and asked him to stop and take her to hospital. The appellant, however, continued the procedure, assuring her not to worry. During the act, the hook broke inside the deceased. The deceased later succumbed to excessive hemorrhage and septic complications.

5. Accordingly, a case was registered under Sections 314/316/34 of the IPC and after completion of investigation Charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant under Sections 314/316 of the IPC.

6. During trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein she denied generally and declined to examine any witness in defence.

7. The learned Sessions Court, after completion of arguments, by the impugned judgment convicted the accused/appellant under Section 314 IPC and sentenced thereof. Situated thus, the instant appeal has been preferred.

8. Mr. Anisul Alam, learned counsel for the appellant, in his usual fairness, submits that the appellant does not dispute the conviction on merits. However, the sentence of 7 (Seven) years term is excessive and disproportionate considering that the deceased herself requested the abortion; the appellant is more than 70 years old; and there was no intention to cause death.

9. Per contra, Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State relied on the ocular testimony of PW-1, corroborating medical evidence and circumstances proving the presence and actions of the appellant at the crucial time. He further submits that the sentence of 7 (Seven) years imprisonment is totally proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the crime.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=lG6h6ilt3H1fOBr4DLdM9SRtpL2vy6QEh4M8jEW0PX2angmgUwPc17OWIY8aZjkR&caseno=Crl.A./145/2014&cCode=1&cino=GAHC010248642014&state_code=6&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.