Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) NO.286 OF 1996 =========================================================== AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION AND THE ORDER OF SENTENCE DATED 14TH OCTOBER, 1996 PASSED BY SHRI MADAN MOHAN CHOUDHARY, 1ST ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, MADHUBANI IN SESSIONS TRIAL NO. 199 OF 1995/218 OF 1996 ARISING OUT OF BISFI POLICE STATION CASE NO. 91 OF 1994 =========================================================== 1. ILYAS @ BAGHWA, SON OF ABDUL AZIZ 2. SADRE ALAM, SON OF ABDUL HAMID BOTH ARE RESIDENT OF VILLAGE CHHACHHUA, POLICE STATION BISFI, DISTRICT MADHUBANI .... APPELLANTS VERSUS THE STATE OF BIHAR .... .... RESPONDENT =========================================================== APPEARANCE : FOR THE APPELLANTS : MS. FAUZIA SHAKIL, ADVOCATE MR. SHAILENDRA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE S T A T E : MR. SUJIT KUMAR SINGH, A.P.P. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SHEEMA ALI KHAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 30-11-2012 Sheema Ali Khan, J. The two appellants have been found guilty under [STATUTE] and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Madhubani in Sessions Trial No. 119 of 1995/218 of 1996. 2. The prosecution case as made out by the victim of this case who given her fardbayan on 07.07.1994 is that she was a divorcee, living with her mother. It is said that her husband had divorced her after three years of the marriage on the ground that her mother had not given her enough dowry. After her divorce, she was living with her mother and claims that Ilyas, appellant no. 1 began to visit her and forced her to have physical Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.286 of 1996 dt.30-11-2012 2 / 6 2 relationship with him after which the affair continued for several months. The informant realized that she was pregnant and disclosed this fact to her mother. She alleges that she was feeling unwell and at that time, Ilyas and Sadre Alam visited her and gave her some medicines. She claims that she took the pills and thereafter felt pain, which resulted in her losing the baby. Thereafter, the villagers were told, and a panchayat took place on 04.07.1994 at the doorstep of Noor Hasan. In the panchayat, it was decided that Ilyas should marry the informant, however, he disappeared from the panchayat and refused to marry the informant. 3. On the basis of the said information, the trial commenced in which the informant and the mother were examined to prove the prosecution case. PW 3, Nasruddin, who is not mentioned in the First Information Report as one of the witness to the panchayat, has also come forward to claim that panchayat was held and it was decided that appellant no. 1 should marry the informant. 4. Counsel for the appellants submits that even if it is presumed that the informant was having an affair with the appellant no. 1, and that she had become pregnant because of the said relationship, it cannot be assumed that the appellants has forced the informant to take certain medicines to terminate the pregnancy. Moreover, the doctor has found that the pregnancy would be between 4-7 months and, therefore, it Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.286 of 1996 dt.30-11-2012 3 / 6 3 cannot be ruled out that the abortion was not induced by medicines, rather the lady aborted because of some other reason. Apart from which, it has been argued that there are vital contradictions between the evidence of the informant Afsana Khatoon and her mother, namely, Laila Khatoon. 5. The informant Afsana Khatoon has been examined as PW 1. According to her case, she had informed her mother regarding the physical relationship and her pregnancy. She claims that her mother was present when she was pressurized to take certain medicines, which is contrary to the case made out in the First Information Report, where she has stated specifically that nobody was present in the house when Ilyas and Sadre Alam gave her the pills to swallow. Regarding the Panchayat held, Afsana Khatoon claims that the Panches had directed the appellant no. 1 to marry her or to pay her a certain amount of money. She claims that she was given a sum of Rs. 6,000/- by Ilyas. There is a suggestion that Sahid and Ezaz have enmity with the appellants and there are cases pending between them which has led to the filing of this case, which is completely false. 6. On reading the evidence of PW 1, it is apparent that the informant has tried to improve her case by introducing her mother as a witness at the time when the pills were handed over by Ilyas and Sadre Alam. It may be noted that the informant has not made out a case that she was in any way pressurized to Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.286 of 1996 dt.30-11-2012 4 / 6 4 take the pills or that she was forcibly administered the medicines. In Court, she has tried to make out a case that she was forced to take the medicines by the appellants. Therefore, this Court concludes that PW 1 has introduced new facts in evidence, which were not part of the First Information Report. 7. Laila Khatoon, the mother of the informant, was examined as PW 2. According to her evidence, she was present at the time when the appellants handed over two pills to the informant. She has stated that the informant was forced to swallow the medicines by the appellants, which is not the case as made out in the First Information Report. She admits that appellant no. 1 was married at the time he entered into the relationship with the informant. She also submits that she was well aware that Ilyas was on visiting terms and had a relationship with her daughter. She had told the villagers that Ilyas had raped her daughter and had also told them regarding the pregnancy of her daughter within 10 days of her getting pregnant. She has made out a case that her son was not present when the First Information Report was instituted. 8. The evidence of PW 2 contradicts the evidence of PW

Applicable IPC Section: 313

Statute Text:
Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code. Causing miscarriage without woman's consent. Whoever commits the offence defined in the last preceding section without the consent of the woman, whether the woman is quick with child or not, shall be punished with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.