Back
Assault on Pregnant Woman's Abdomen Can Attract Charge:
The has ruled that an assault on the abdomen of a woman in an advanced stage of pregnancy can constitute an under , even if the medical certificate records no visible injury and the mother and child are subsequently healthy. Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde dismissed a petition filed by four family members seeking to criminal proceedings arising from such an incident.
The Alleged Incident and Charges
The petitioners—Santhosh Kumar H.L., his father Lokesh H.N., mother Jawaramma H.M., and sister Saritha H.L.—were charged with offences under , along with . The case originated from Crime No. 106/2023 registered at . The complainant, Smt. Kavya C.S., alleged that while she was in an advanced stage of pregnancy, the petitioners assaulted her, including striking her on the abdomen. The petitioners moved the High Court under (equivalent to ) to the in S.C. No. 39/2024 pending before the .
Arguments for Quashing
Counsel for the petitioners argued that the lacked materials to sustain a charge under . They pointed out that there was no bleeding injury, no weapon was used, and the medical records described the injury as simple. Moreover, the victim had since delivered a healthy baby, and both mother and child were normal. The petitioners contended that these facts made the invocation of impermissible, and the remaining allegations were vague and bald.
State and Victim's Opposition
The State and the victim's counsel jointly opposed the petition, emphasising that the materials indicated an . They highlighted that the victim was pregnant at the time of the assault and was allegedly hit on the abdomen, a vulnerable area. This, they argued, brought the case squarely within the ambit of .
High Court's Reasoning
Rejecting the petitioners' submissions, the Court held that the absence of a visible injury or the subsequent delivery of a healthy child does not negate the possibility that the assault took place. Justice Hegde observed:
"Since, it is not in dispute that, at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. Thus, the alleged assault on the abdomen by the petitioners cannot be said to be an act which is outside the purview of . Merely because there is no injury forthcoming in the medical certificate that, by itself, cannot be a reason to say that the case is out of the ambit of ."
The Court further noted that the victim does not accept the petitioners' version that no incident occurred, making it a that must be resolved at trial.
Key Observations
The judgment underscored that the —striking a pregnant woman on the abdomen—is , regardless of the actual outcome. The Court stated:
"Though learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that, the victim has delivered a baby and both the mother and the baby are healthy and urges that Section 307 cannot be attracted, the Court is of the view that by itself does not lead to the conclusion that the alleged incident of assaulting on the abdomen of a pregnant woman has not taken place."
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the petition, refusing to the proceedings. It clarified that all observations were limited to the quashing petition and did not affect the merits of the defence to be raised during trial. All contentions of the parties were kept open for the trial court to consider.
This ruling reinforces the principle that the of an charge lies in the intent and the , not merely the extent of injury inflicted. It serves as a significant precedent for cases involving assault on pregnant women, emphasising that the vulnerability of the victim can elevate such acts to the level of attempted murder.
