i‘iib'li DUUK; Uk‘ LiiiiA l ASPUK (iriminai Anneai E). 34'2- i2i‘3t‘31 Ru Sangeeta Mishra, Advocate , for {he «I 1 n v. 4- t‘ billlAiaV VFW—ECU UV LIOVI AdVOCaL€ T01" U16 ¢+n+a vLa. . 112pp1xxuta , J$EGEEI€T ongongm --v Bilirenai'a Eishra. J 'i’ms Cl‘nninal appeai is dimmed againSt the jutigment of convmtion and ordgr of sentence dated Qt‘n Mara-1, QGOI passed in ST N0. 345/QQ whereby ‘iearned r is? Additionai SessiOns Judge, Ambikapur has convicted the auneliant‘s under Sections 3H read with Section 34, Section 315 read Wltn Section 34 and Section 3 16 read with Section 34 of LPG. and sentenced them to Undergo RE. far if) years with fine of Rs. 20136} on each count and in default of Davinent of fine, to Lurtner undergo R one year for each offence. 2 it is not in dispute that the appeiiants have been released from jaji after mldergoing the sentence timnosed upon them on ?—‘6-’2Di’)5 and 95-2003 _1‘espective1v; 5. . On the iast‘ date of hearing, since none appeared on. behaif of the appeilants, Kn. Saligeeta Mishra was aoifnted 1w np AFFELLANTS fndra F’raead (ED Wado, S/o Harvans Dnnnnr‘l T k \ 1 Laaau axilaifv‘v’ai, agbkl AbOLlt 35 t ears K/o vinage Fasnmnanpur h ulcu. +4— vLL‘L‘g‘L‘ga {f‘f‘ ‘vxi'y 2._ dn‘man Bal W/o Lnn‘Ku Caste uxulcu kn“ ngal‘iya, A ag€u r1 AH ‘rv y€SI 3, R] vmage unala Para Basantpur, n:“4~+ G11“ If‘f‘\ Luau. wmgl‘xja If‘f‘\ ‘vxn; 3U§ K$SP6REEET ’ State of Clmattisgarh I)x. as Amicus Curiae to 116131‘esent the appel‘lants and argu€ ms aD1)€al OH 111611? DenaH. 4. Casa of the prosecution, in b111e1, 13 tna‘L deceased Daehmat Bai had iiiicit reiationehm Wltn appellant No. 1, a3 a resuit of which She was carwing' ereglancv of six months. Vagv The appeiiant No‘ 1 to get rid of m‘egnahev .h—em {he deceased Eashmat Bai took her to ‘Lhe appeiiant No. '2 Jinnah Bai for causing aboriion, who in turn aoministered her certain medicines [Jadi Booti} anc‘i inaosagec‘i her stomach, as a result of which the Chiic‘i in the womb as aiso Dashmat 15m cued. PW. 1 Guiah Chand, brother of the deceaseti Dashmat Bai gave merg intimation on ’2mi August, 1999 i.e. on the date of incident itseif. After merg enouirv, offence was registered against the appeiiants on the report of RS. Mahiiang vide Ex F—ii. inquest over the dead ‘oody oi the deceased was nreoared in the Dresence of the Witnesses Vide bx E-z. Thereafter the dead bodV was sent tor autopsy to Government Hospitai, Wadrafnagar Where Dr. FL. Verma u—nw. 9) conducted post mortem and gave his report of EX. P-o wherein he opined the cause of death as syncope as a result intra uterus haeinorrhage. In repiy to the query from the police, Dr. Verma further’opined that at the time ot post mortem, the child was dead. if uterus is forcibiy‘ pressed, piacenta may he ruptured and because of excessive ‘hieeding due to rupttue of piacenta, the‘deceased may die and it is not possihie to opinef whether the chiid was aiive or not ’at the Ul H1116 0f death of the deceased-mother. ”The inimies in i116 uterus of {£16 deceased could be caused by exu‘eme pressure. , 6. Afier comp‘leting the investigation, charge sheet was med m the Court of ducueiai Magistrate First Class, Ramanujganj Whe in turn committed the case to the Court of , SESSIOYIS JudgE, AlllulKapul‘ 311d U16 Sallle “7&3 I‘ECeiVECi OH transfer tor trlal DV the warned Additional Sessions Judge. 7i Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charges under Section 314 read with Section 34, Section 315 read with Section 34 and Section 3; 1b read with Section 54 ot LEG. agamst the appellants, who abjured their guut. 8. During triai, the prosecution examined 10 Witnesses 1n all and Ul€Tealt€L Siat€nl€nt OI {1-16 aCCuS€Cl 1361‘SOI1S VVETG recorded in which thev denied the evidence appearing against U1€111 111 H16 Dl’OS6CuUOH C356 and pleaded lilnOCEHCE and 18.186 1111DHCaUOD . 9. i Learned triai Court after hearing 1earned counsel for the respective parties, convicted and sentenced the anneiiants as'~ mentioned in para i of the judgment. 10. Learned counsei for the appeiiants submits that there are nov eveWitnesses to the incident. Conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial eVidencei The circumstances reiied upon bv the triai Court are that (i) the appe‘liant No. i and the deceased had iiiicit reiationship as a i’GSuit Oi ‘vVi’llCH, UaSl'llTlai “7&3 Cal‘l’ViIlE Dl‘egnanCV OI SIX months; {n} ‘ addiuni 4i a dav peiore the inc1dent, When law; 1 Gulab' jh , c “ i Chand weni in search of Dashmat Bai, 116 Iound ner m 1:116 house of ‘ Mambotn, she mid 111111 that she ls carrvmg pregnmmy 6 to ‘7 month ‘Lhrough incira PTasad and 11mm Prasad has brought her to Jil‘man Eai for her abortion; {iii} thereafter dead bodv of fhe deceasegi Dashmat was found from ah open piace; and 1ast‘1v {iv} the Doctor haS opined that the deceased died due to svneope as; a result 01 111tra uterus haemorrhage’ due to rupture of piacenta from the’uterus. None of the Circtunstances rehed noon bv the trial Court has ‘o‘een ‘mdeoendentiv established by adducmg r reiiabi'e and unstworthv evidence. There is no evidence that the aDD€fial1tS VJ€F€ S6811 in U16 COlllDallV OI H16 GECEaS€Ci innnediateiy before her death and, themfore, the appeiiants cannot he connected with the crime in question on the basis of Circumstantial evidence. i1. Un the other hand, learned counsei for the State, argued that from the evidence of PW. 1 Guia'o Chand, it wouid he evident that the aopeiiant No. ‘1 had linen retatlonsnm \vrtn the deceased. She was carrwng pregnancy of six to seven months as a resu‘it of reiationsnmlwrtn mne aDiJEHaDt NO. I, W110 d1€d OH aCCOuHt OI Dl€€dlng H‘Om utEl‘US which occasioned‘hecause of abortion and there is eVIdence that the appeiiant Nor i tOOk the deceased to apneiiant No. (2 for the ournose of abortion and a day before ,tne death, ’tne deceased herseif toid to her brother that appellant No. i has brought her to appe‘liant No. ‘2 for abortion.’ ’7 ,V : L ,. ‘JI 1'2. i have heal‘d Earneci c0u113€1 for the parties. 1 have perused the impugned judgment as aiso the recerd of the trial COui‘t. 13. Conviction of the appeiiant is based 011 fhe statement OI the PW. '1 Guiab Chand, PW. 6 Jagdish, viiiage Kotwar, Rw. '7 Manhoth 331d 21130 on the statement of P.W.47Sahdev, RW‘ :3 Ramsundar, who have supported the version] of PW. 1 Gulahchand. i4‘ Denosition of RW. 1 Guiahchahd, is to the effect that the daughter of the deceased PW. 3 Mahju came to mm weeomg that her mother is missing for 1ast two days. He went in search of Jirman Bat and found her in the house ol Manhodh. She toid him that she is carrving pregnancy due to her relationship with apyeiiant No. ‘1 indra Prasad and he has brought her to Jirman for abortion and she wouid return EOlilOITGK-V . i5. KW. 6 Jagdish has aiso stated that Dashmat was pregnant through indra E‘asad. Anneiiant Endra Prasad had . taken her to the house of Jirman for her treatment and sne died during the treatment. The above version of Jagcnsn has not been chalienged in cross—examination. ‘16. The other Witnesses nameh; PW. 4 Sahdev and HW. 5 Ramsundar have aiso corroborated the statement of PW. i Guia‘b Chand. PW. '7 i‘v‘ianbodh has stated that on the date of incident at about 10.09 am. indra Frasad and Dashmat both came to his house. He provided them accommodation, Ln his 1 I J t a. @ i111 {lo—Lise. The Drotner 0f Dashmat Bai came there and enquired about Dashmat Dashmat imbnnea him that she is carrying 13reg11ancy tnrough indi‘a Prasad who has broughi her for aborLion. Thereafter her brother returnec‘i home. Dashmat started vomiiing. indra Prasad was present there anci ‘thereafter, uitimateiv, she died. The svnmtcms recorded hsr ' Dr. PL. Verma (PW. 9) who has conriucted post mortem over the person of the cteceased has Clearh; stated that the deceased died due to rupture of piacenta which could he caused by extreme pressure Whiie inducing abortion. U. From the aforesaid evidence, it is established that following circumstances have been successfuiiv estabiished :- {i) that the aphel‘iant no. 1 and the deceased Uashmat Bai had inicit'reiationship, as a resuit of which she was carrying pregnancy of 6—7 months; She was taken by appeiiant No‘ 1 Indra Prasad for the purpose of abortion to appellant No.2 Jirman naj and thev resided in the house of Manbodh; {iii} The deceased herself informed her brother Gulab Chand that the appellant No. l brought her to appellant No. '2 for abortion; [iv] Un the verv next dav, deceased Dashinat Bai died in unnatural condition; and lastiv As per the post mortein report of the deceased, the ' cause of death. was synCOpe due to intra uterus {v} naemorrhaae. L—————: @ - 18. Thus the prosecution has been abie to estabiish the guiit ofthe appeiiants through the chain of circumstances meniioned above. There is no i‘i‘legaiity or infmnity‘ in the impugneé Order committed by the triai Court. 19. The appeai being devoiti of substahce, ciesewes to be CiiSmiSSed and is hereby dismissed. J\ r A « v—z