The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for corroborative evidence, medical documentation, and proper recording of the accused's statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in criminal trials to ensure a fair trial and the opportunity for the accused to articulate a defence.

JUDGMENT :

NAVNEET KUMAR, J.

1. This appeal is preferred against the Judgment of Conviction and order of sentence dated 23.07.2005 passed by the learned Additional District & Session Judge, FTC, Koderma, in S.T. No. 321 of 2000, arising out of Koderma P.S. Case No. 238 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. No. 506 of 1997, whereby the sole accused appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 316 of IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for seven years and also to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand) and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one year under Section 316 of IPC. The learned trial court further ordered that the fine imposed upon the accused shall be paid to the victim woman Urmila Devi.

2. The allegations against the appellant arose in the wake of the complaint petition bearing No. 156 /97 which was filed by the informant Prakash Yadav (PW-5), husband of the victim Smt. Urmila Devi. Later this complaint was converted as police case bearing Koderma P.S. Case No. 238 of 1997 and a formal FIR was drawn to this effect u/s 406, 420, 313 & 316 of IPC. In complaint petition, it was stated that the accused Rajendra Sao, who was said to be a quack (a fraudulent doctor without minimum required qualification) was called for by the informant on 16.06.1997 at about 12.00 noon, when his wife was experiencing delivery pain. The accused had given assurance to get relief with her pain, when three injections shall be injected to her and further he had stated that he would charge to a sum Rs. 500/- for the said purpose. Further the said injection was injected to Urmila Devi and just after that her pain was increased and she became restless and the husband of Urmila Devi, found that his wife was not feeling well, then he told to the accused that why he had committed wrong with his wife, but after getting some assurance from the said accused, the victim Urmila Devi was admitted in Holly Family Hospital, Koderma, where with the help of expert doctor and operation dead child was born on 17.06.1997 and then the informant claimed from the accused to reimburse the expenditure incurred during the treatment of Urmila Devi and claimed Rs. 8,000/- but the accused threatened to him that he would lodge a false case against the informant. It was further stated that after getting discharged from the Holly Family Hospital, then on 25.07.1997, the informant went to concerned P.S. and when the police did not institute the case of the informant then he filed the complaint petition before the Court of A.C.J.M. Koderma on 16.08.1997. After that the case was sent to Koderma P.S. for the institution and registration as police case.

3. Thereafter the case was lodged as Koderma P.S. Case No. 238 of 1997 and after the investigation, the police submitted the charge-sheet against the accused person u/s 316 & 313 of IPC. The learned A.C.J.M. took the cognizance of the case and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and the charges were framed against the accused person under sections 313 and 316 of IPC on 16.05.2001, to which, he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried and after taking the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of the accused person was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. against which, he denied the allegations. The defence case is total denial to the occurrence as alleged. It is further case of the defence is that due to personal grudge and enmity, this case was filed. It is further case of the defence is that in this regard a Sanha was lodged by the accused person as it was marked as Exhibit No. A and the learned court below after conducting the full fledged trial passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, which is under challenge in this appeal.

4. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar, the learned defence counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Tarun Kumar, APP appearing on behalf of the State.

Arguments advanced on beh