Page No.# 1/5 GAHC010006212009 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : Crl.A. 183/2009 1:BHOLA DEY S/O LATE MOTILAL DEY, R/O GANGA BARI, A.T. ROAD, P.O. and P.S. MAKUM, DIST. TINSUKIA, ASSAM. VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MRG P BHOWMIK Advocate for the Respondent : MR. B J DUTTA( ADDL.P.P., ASSAM) Linked Case : Crl.M.C. 658/2009 1:BHOLA DEY S/O LATE MOTILAL DEY R/O GANGA BARI A.T. ROAD P.O. and P.S. MAKUM DIST. TINSUKIA ASSAM. VERSUS 1:THE STATE OF ASSAM Page No.# 2/5 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.J PURKAYASTHA Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE RUMI KUMARI PHUKAN JUDGMENT Date : 04-05-2018 Heard Mr. G. P. Bhowmik, learned counsel for appellant and Mr. B. J. Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. 2. This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge 2 (FTC), Tinsukia, dated 01.09.2009, in Sessions Case 160 (T)/2008 whereby the appellant is convicted under Section 312 of the IPC and sentenced to s/i for 3 (three) years with a fine of Rs 500/- (Rupees Five Hundred) and in default to s/i for 10 (ten) days more. 3. The prosecution case is brief is that one Minu Paharia had on 03.05.2008, filed an FIR at Makum Police Station stating that she had an affair with the appellant who assuring to marry her had developed physical relation with her and as a result she became pregnant and on 12.04.2008, she was taken to Doom Dooma Civil Hospital posing him as husband and aborted her fotus. 4. On the basis of the FIR, Makum P.S. Case 37/2008 under Section 493/315/316 of the IPC was registered and after completion of investigation Chargesheet under Section 493/315/316 of the IPC was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tinsukia, who registered G.R. Case 563/2008 committed the case to the learned Sessions Judge, Tinsukia for trial. Accrodingly, the Sessions case 160 (T)/2008 was registered. The learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 417 and 313 of the IPC to which accused/appellant pleaded not guilty. Prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses including the investigating officer and medical officers. Concluding the trial, the learned Trial Court held the appellant guilty as above. Hence this appeal. 5. Let us look at the evidence adduced by the prosecution in the case. 6. P.W. 5, Victim Smti M. Paharia stated that she had love-affairs with the accused since last three years. She further stated that accused frequently committed sexual intercourse with her. She further stated on every occasion she responded to the calls given by the accused and he committed sex with her. This witness also stated when she became pregnant she told the fact of pregnancy to the accused Page No.# 3/5 (date is not mentioned). But accused asked for abortion and promised to marry her after two months. Accordingly, accused administered her medicine for causing abortion but subsequently accused brought her to Hospital and caused abortion but accused did not marry her as promised. A village meeting was held but accused fled away from his house at the instance of his parents. 7. In her cross-examination, P.W. 5 stated that she became pregnant form the side of accused and on being told accused asked her for abortion (wash) by a doctor and accordingly brought her to Hospital Doom Dooma, F.R.U. on 12.04.2008. She added that prior to bringing her hospital accused administered her some medicine and caused miscarriage. 8. P.W. 1, Dr. Ranjit Das in his evidence stated that on 12.04.2008, he was working as a Sr. Medical and Health Officer in Doom Dooma F.R.U. and on that day a girl (victim) came with some girls and a boy. The boy (accused) identified himself as husband of the girl. He further stated that the name of the girl is Minu Paharia (victim). Husband identified himself as Bhola Dey (accused). He added on being asked Bhola Dey told him that Minu Paharia was carrying three months pregnancy and she feeling pain and bleeding. On being asked the girl (victim) told that her husband (accused) administered some medicine for abortion of the pregnancy. The patient was admitted in the Hospital and given treatment. Thereafter, attending nurse of the said Hospital informed him over the telephone that one product of conceive was coming out; he added. The patient was discharged on 14.04.2008. 9. Other witnesses P.W. 2, Smti Sushila Mohabir, P.W. 3, Smti Laxmi Devi, P.W. 4 Smti Sabitri Sarmah are mere reported witnesses stating that P.W. 5 told them that she had love-affairs and physical relation with accused person. As regard the incident, P.W. 2 has stated that she found the accused and victim at Hospital and upon asking accused told her that he brought the victim to Hospital for washing as she carries three months pregnancy. However, this three witnesses have no personal knowledge about the occurrence. 10. The evidence of P.W. 6, Dr. A. K. Sonowal reveals that he examined the victim on 03.05.2008, after the abortion took place on 12.04.2008 and he found no mark of injury on her private parts nor there was any sign of recent abortion. 11. The P.W. 7 has no knowledge about the occurrence and the evidence of other witnesses P.W. 8 to P.W. 10 are of formal in nature who investigated the case. During the course of investigation certain register to the Hospital was seized which reveals that the victim shown the accused as her husband. The I.O. has confirm the statement of P.W. 1/ the Doctor who attended the victim that he did not disclose before him that the victim told him that the accused administered some medicine to her for abortion. Page No.# 4/5 12. On perusal of entire evidence in record, it is discernible that the parties are in love with each other and they are indulging sex for a period of around three years as a result of which the victim became pregnant. As soon as she apprised the accused about the matter the accused assured her to married soon but however advised her to cause abortion to her pregnancy. She was administered some drugs by the accused and she did not protest against the conduct of the accused and readily consumed the medicine that was offered to her for terminating her pregnancy. Thus she voluntarily indulged herself for causing such abortion on the hope that the accused will marry her. But after the incident the accused did not turn up and failed to fulfill his promise to marry her at the behest of his parent, for which she filed the FIR on 03.05.2008, after the abortion on 12.04.2008. The act of informant appears to be promiscuity. She could not spell about the medicine that was administered to her by the accused to cause such abortion. On the other hand, she went to the Hospital accompanied by the accused appellant and admitted in the hospital and caused the abortion. To prove an offence under Section 312 IPC the prosecution is to prove the following- (a) The concerned woman was pregnant. (b) That the accused (who may also be the concerned woman herself) has caused the woman to miscarry. (c) That such act on the part of accused was voluntary. (d) That such miscarriage has not been caused in good faith for the purpose of saving of the life of the woman concerned. 13. The onus to prove upon the person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence. In the given case, the accused as well as the victim herself was contributory towards the abortion caused to the victim. So far as the conduct of the accused/appellant it reveals that he himself introduce as a husband of the victim before the Hospital authority and couple with the other evidence on record that he was found with the victim in the Hospital has sufficiently proved that the miscarriage was done at the instance of the accused person which was found to be done not bonafide. 14. In the circumstances it can be found that the learned Trial Court rightly held the accused guilty under Section 312 IPC. There appears no any ground to interfere with the findings of the Trial Court. However, it is noted that both the accused and the victim were 18 years of age at the time of occurrence and they were still under the stormy age of adolescence and lack of proper maturity, in understanding the effect of their conduct. That apart the accused has no any earlier criminal antecedent. Having regard to the age and antecedent of the accused and taking into note that the Page No.# 5/5 matter relates to far back of 2008 and the accused remained in custody for around 4 (four) months, while maintaining the conviction, the sentence is converted to the period already undergone by the accused and to pay the fine as imposed by the Trial Court. The appeal stands disposed of as indicated above. Return the LCR. JUDGE Comparing Assistant