SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 4869

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Amit Bansal, J.
Ankita Jain – Appellant
Versus
The State & Ors. – Respondents
Cr.REV.P. 754 of 2023, Cr.M.A. 18853 of 2023 (Ex.), Cr.M.A. 18852 of 2023 (delay 72 days in filing)
Decided On : 20-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Manish Kr. Singh and Ms.Tanya Nayyar, Advocates, for the Petitioner.
Mr.Ritesh Kumar Bahri, APP for the State with SI Nishant, PS Roop Nagar.

The importance of medical evidence and the need for sufficient material on record to establish a prima facie case.

Headnote:

Miscarriage - Charges under Section 313 IPC - [Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 313] - The court discussed the importance of medical evidence and the need for sufficient material on record to establish a prima facie case. The absence of ultrasound reports and the lack of medical documents attributing the miscarriage to the actions of the accused led to the dismissal of the petition.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner alleged mental harassment, cruelty, and physical assault on account of dowry demands. The petitioner suffered a miscarriage and accused respondents no.2 to 6 were discharged of charges under Section 313 of the IPC.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no sufficient material on record to establish a prima facie case that the miscarriage occurred on account of the actions of the accused persons.

Issues: The issue was whether the miscarriage suffered by the petitioner was on account of the actions of the accused respondents no.2 to 6.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of medical evidence and the need for sufficient material on record to establish a prima facie case. It was noted that mere allegations without corroboration with other evidence would not be sufficient to hold the accused prima facie guilty for the offence of miscarriage.

Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and all pending applications were disposed of.

JUDGMENT

Amit Bansal, J. (Oral)

1. The present revision petition has been filed impugning the order dated 25th January, 2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, whereby the accused respondents no.2 to 6 were discharged of charges under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) in FIR No.209/2018 under Sections 498A/406/313/323/509/34 of the IPC, registered at Police Station Roop Nagar.

2. Brief facts culminating into the filing of the present revision petition are that on the complaint of the petitioner, FIR No.209/2018 was registered at Police Station Roop Nagar, wherein the petitioner had made allegations of, inter alia, being subjected to mental harassment, cruelty and physical assault on account of demands of dowry from the accused respondents no.2 to 6. It was also specifically alleged by the petitioner that on 17th November, 2017, the respondent no.2/husband of the petitioner and respondent no.4, despite having knowledge of the pregnancy of the petitioner and with the intention of removing her from the house, physically pushed her, which caused her to fall and consequently suffer a miscarriage.

3. Subsequently, investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed.

4. The Trial Court, while dropping charges under Section 313 of the IPC, framed charges against the accused respondents no.2 to 6 under Sections 498A/406/323/509/34 of the IPC and the matter was remanded to the Court of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate.

5. Counsel for the petitioner impugns the order dated 25th January, 2023 on the ground that medical documents on record clearly show that the petitioner suffered a miscarriage. It is further submitted that the question of whether or not the miscarriage was caused on account of the actions of the accused is a matter which can only be determined in trial and therefore, the Trial Court should have framed charges under Section 313 of the IPC.

6. Per contra, learned APP submits that there was no material on record in support of charges under Section 313 of the IPC. He further submits that for framing of charges under Section 313 of the IPC, there has to be scientific evidence on record. Therefore, he defends the impugned order passed by the Trial Court.

7. I have heard the counsels for the parties and have examined the material on record.

8. At the outset, reference may be made to the following observations of the Trial Court:

"I had the privilege of assistance rendered by Dr. Divya Goel, who was the consulting doctor. Dr Divya Goel apprised this Court that the complainant/victim for sure suffered miscarriage, however, she submits that without ultrasound report made available to her, she cannot confirm about the exact date of miscarriage and she also cannot confirm the exact cause of miscarriage. Evidently, in the case at hand, there is a missing link between the alleged assault and the alleged miscarriage. For reasons best known to the complainant/prosecution, ultrasound reports dated 18.11.2017, 23.11.2017 and 30.11.2017 have not been placed on record. Upon specific inquiry, the complainant submits that no ultrasound was carried out on 18.11.207 and 23.11.2017. Despite specific advice given by the doctor on 18.11-2017, no ultrasound was conducted upon the complainant. It is baffling that on 23.11.2017, the consulting doctor, without insisting upon the previous ultrasound report, perfunctorily advised medication and once again advised fresh ultrasound to the complainant. Still further, even on 30.11.2017, the complainant approached the consulting doctor Ms Divya Goel without any ultrasound report and once again she was advised for a fresh ultrasound. Evidently, there is a gap of about 13 days between the alleged assault and the detection of the alleged miscarriage. It is not in dispute that during these 13 days, victim was residing in her parental home with her parents. Consequently, a void appears in the prosecution version and the causal link between all

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top