How to appreciate evidence when prosecution put forth the case that wife was pregnant when she has committed Suicide?

 Here while advancing submissions, learned APP fairly pointed out that prosecution's evidence in trial court does not show deceased Manisha to be pregnant. Therefore, at the threshold it is required to be ascertained as to whether it is so. It assumes significance because very prosecution version is that deceased was not sent for delivery unless their alleged demand was met. {Para 9}

10. In above backdrop, it has become imperative for this court to first study the evidence in that regard and for the same evidence of medico - legal expert, i.e. PW8 Dr. Kiran Patil is required to be visited. His evidence at Exh.74. While under examination-in- chief deposed about conducting post mortem (Exh.41) and testifying about contents therein to be true and correct. He deposed that, if a lady was carrying pregnancy is ablazed and if she sustains burns, she could get aborted because of such burns, immediately.

However, while under cross at the hands of defence, he answered that, on the basis of post mortem report, it is his say that, the patient Manisha was not carrying pregnancy.

11. Apart from above evidence, if we visit post mortem report (Exh.41), in paragraph no.21 as regards to organs of generation and state of contents of stomach, remark is "uterus empty". In trial court, Exh.40 is finding place which is certificate issued by autopsy surgeon in response to letter dated 08.08.2002 communicating that "as per your letter received on 08.08.2002 in 462/2002, PM No.152 OF 2002 Manisha @ Munni Satish Patil A/P Jamod was found not pregnant, "uterus empty" at P.M. and final cause of death is "shock due to 100% mixed thermal burns."

PW4 Shobha, a nurse, who is also examined by prosecution to show that deceased was pregnant and accordingly card (Exh.57) was issued by Primary Health Centre, in examination- in-chief, stated that, deceased was examined in "Shibir" (Health Camp). That, her mother-in-law had informed that, her menstruation cycle had stopped. Witness stated that, on examining Manisha, she found her to be carrying pregnancy, but while under cross she answered that, she has studied up to 12th standard. She answered that, after putting her palm on the stomach of Manisha, she could "guess" that she was carrying pregnancy. She admitted that, when pregnant woman expires, autopsy is conducted, then there must be mentioned the fact of pregnancy in post mortem report. She further answered that, she did not make enquiry with Manisha whether she was prescribed any medicine by any doctor. She answered that, as her belly was found in bigger size, she deposed that, she was pregnant. She also answered that, she has not brought a book carrying record of issuance of card.

12. Taking into account above discussed material on behalf of very prosecution, here there are serious doubts about alleged pregnancy of deceased Manisha. More particularly, autopsy surgeon has in writing as well as before the court, admitted that, uterus was empty. Meaning thereby, there was no fetus and as such no pregnancy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Appeal No. 413 of 2004

Decided On: 14.12.2024

Satish Bhagwan Patil and Ors. Vs. The State of Maharashtra

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Abhay S. Waghwase, J.

Citation: MANU/MH/7535/2024.

Read full Judgment here: Click here.

Print Page

Guidelines of High court in respect of termination of pregnancy of Rape victim

In view of the foregoing discussion, interim directions are

issued as under:

(i) Principal Secretary, Department of Health & Family

Welfare, Government of Haryana, shall deposit a sum

of `5000/- per month in the account of petitioner No.

1 for food and medical expenses. The deposit shall be

made on or before 7th of each calendar month w.e.f.

01.06.2016 for one year.

(ii) The Chief Medical Officer, Nuh and the Medical

Superintendent of Civil Hospital-cum-SHKM

Government Medical College Malhar shall depute a

senior obstetrician/ gynecologist to examine petitioner

No. 1 from time to time and give proper advice in the

matter of medicine and due medical facilities of

health professionals i.e nurses etc.. This will be in

addition to the help and assistance to be provided to

Petitioner No. 1 by AIIMS, New Delhi.

(iii) The Medical Superintendent of AIIMS shall also

provide the adequate medical help as aforesaid to

victim-petitioner No. 1.

(iv) Whenever Petitioner No. 1 visits for medical checkup

and counselling , the concerned doctors shall deal

with her sympathetically. The counselling shall be

provided to her regularly as per the mental health of

petitioner No. 1 and the requirement for the same in

view of the alleged threat of suicide by her.

(v) The State of Haryana shall also deposit an amount of

Rs.5 lakh in fixed deposit in the name of petitioner

No. 1 as damages and expenses as the officers at the

helm of affairs failed to act with due diligence. This

amount will be in addition to the other claim of

petitioner No. 1 under the provisions of law. The said

amount shall remain in fixed deposit in a scheduled

Bank; however, the interest accruing on it can be paid

to petitioner No.1 only after 31.06.2017, by the

concerned bank, if demanded by petitioner No. 1.

(vi) It is clarified that the amounts awarded by this Court

are in addition to the entitlement as per provisions of

Code of Criminal Procedure.

(vii) This Court has already issued directions in various

cases as Kavita, Vijender and Bashir Khan (supra),

referred in the earlier part of the judgement. It is

emphasized that each of those directions should also

be followed in letter and spirit.

(viii) The Central Government is advised to consider

making amendments to the Medical Termination Of

Pregnancy Act, 1971 and clarify in so many words to

the doctors that they will not be unnecessarily

prosecuted if they act in accordance with the rules in

good faith to save the life of a victim of rape or to

prevent grave injury to her physical and mental

health. Termination of pregnancy in good faith which

results from crime is otherwise permitted under the

provision of MTP Act.

(ix) Seminars for investigating agencies, doctors, lawyers

and judicial officers who have occasion to deal with

such cases should be organized periodically. They

should be sensitized about the urgency and immediate

need of counselling and other medical assistance

required to a rape victim. The respective departments

having control over these agencies should regularly

update its officers/officials about the legal provisions

and settled law on the subject.

(x) The Refresher Courses for the members of the

Superior and Subordinate Judiciary of the States of

Punjab, Haryana and U.T.Chandigarh be held to make

them aware of the provisions of the MTP Act and

urgency in such cases. In order to ensure that if any

case is brought before the gestation period reaches 20

weeks, victim be informed about her choice to seek

termination at the earliest.

(xi) The copy of this judgment be sent to the offices of

Advocate Generals of Punjab and Haryana and the

Standing Counsel for U.T., in order to ensure that if,

and when, any case is brought to Court for passing of

any orders under the MTP Act, the said case can be

determined on the first day itself by sending the

woman to the medical board immediately for quick

action if possible under the provisions of law. The

need for filing of reply should not arise so as to avoid

wasting of precious time available with the pregnant

victim.

(xii) The Registry is directed not to mention the name of

rape victim in the cause list, judgment order, but they

may refer to her name by mentioning the first

alphabet of her name.

(xiii) The Counsel representing the victim of rape are also

requested not to disclose the identity of victim in the

petition in the head-note of petition. They may also

write the first alphabet of name of the victim and may

quote 'name withheld' in particulars.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

 CWP-6733-2016

 Date of Decision: 30.05.2016

R (name withheld) and another

 ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana and others

 ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

 DHALIWAL

Print Page

When non-disclosure of past life of wife during maidenhood does not amounts fraud?

Upon consideration of the submissions made by the contesting parties and the materials on record it appears to us that the petitioner claimed annulment of the marriage, so far as Clause (c) is concerned, on the ground of fraud by suppression of premarital pregnancy of the respondent by one S.S. Roy. A careful rading of the said Clause (c) clearly indicates that the expression 'fraud' used in the said Clause has a meaning in which such term is understood in legal parlance. Material fact or circumstance must be taken to mean such fact or circumstances, concerning the respondent, which if known to the petitioner, might have dissuaded him from consenting to the marriage with the respondent.

5. So far as Clause (d) abovementioned is concerned the pregnancy of the respondent must have been in existence at the time of the marriage, ruling out thereby a pregnancy, which did not exist at such relevant time.

6. Sections 20 and 21 of the Act lay down what a petition should contain and attract the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to the verification of the plaint to such petitions. It can, therefore, be said that in case of petition on the ground of fraud, the requirements of Order 6, Rule 4 must have to be fulfilled. In the instant case, from a reading of the petition, it appears that the fraud alleged consisted of suppression of previous pregnancy of the respondent from the petitioner. There is no material to show the alleged premarital pregnancy of the respondent. Such pregnancy not having been established by evidence, the allegation of fraud by suppression of the said suspected pregnancy cannot be effective as a ground for annulment of marriage. The other ground of respondent's pregnancy in terms of Clause (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 12, as already stated hereinabove, not having been proved by evidence, but being merely a product of suspicion, cannot be said to constitute a ground in terms of the said Clause.

Calcutta High Court

Provat Kumar Chatterjee vs Smt. Gita Chatterjee on 17 March, 1994

Equivalent citations: 98 CWN 1133, II (1994) DMC 248

Bench: S Mookherjee, A Bhattacharyya

Print Page