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

2021 Supreme(Ori) 358

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Debashis Ghosh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Odisha & Anr. - Respondents
Bail Application No. 5249 of 2020
Decided On : 25-02-2021

Advocates Appeared:
Devashis Panda, Advocate, D.K. Naik, Advocate, D.K. Mohapatra, Advocate, S. Panda, Advocate, L. Samantaray, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for compliance with the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the protection afforded to medical practitioners for actions taken in good faith.

Headnote:

MTP Act - Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act - Section 3, Section 4, Section 8 - The court discussed the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and emphasized the need for compliance with the Act in terminating a pregnancy. It highlighted the requirement for the opinion of registered medical practitioners, the place where the termination may be conducted, and the protection afforded to medical practitioners for actions taken in good faith.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a medical officer, terminated the pregnancy of a minor girl based on a police requisition. The petitioner claimed to have acted in good faith to save the life and dignity of the victim girl. An internal inquiry found no irregularity in the termination of the pregnancy. The petitioner sought bail, while the state alleged conspiracy and non-compliance with procedures.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the case meritorious and granted bail to the petitioner, emphasizing the need for compliance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the protection afforded to medical practitioners acting in good faith.

Issues: The issues involved the termination of the minor girl's pregnancy based on a police requisition, allegations of conspiracy, and non-compliance with procedures under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for compliance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the requirement for the opinion of registered medical practitioners, and the protection afforded to medical practitioners for actions taken in good faith.

Final Decision: The court granted bail to the petitioner in connection with the case, highlighting the need for compliance with the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and the protection afforded to medical practitioners acting in good faith.

JUDGMENT

S.K. Panigrahi, J. - The present application under Section 439 Cr.P.C.has been filed in connection with C.I.D. (C.B.) P.S. Case No.05 of 2020 (Raiboga P.S. Case No.41 of 2020) corresponding to Special G.R. Case No.88 of 2020 pending in the Court of the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Sundargarh wherein the Petitioner is alleged to have committed an offence punishable under Sections 313/166/201/120(B), IPC read with Sections 17/21 of the POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST (PA) Act.

2. The factual conspectus as narrated in the F.I.R., in brief, is that a minor girl aged about 13 years was produced before the Child Welfare Committee on 15.06.2020 by the Biramitrapur Police Station and was subsequently sent to the Open Shelter, Bisra. Since the victim girl had complained of pain, she was taken for treatment to Bisra C.H.C. and therefrom to Rourkela Government Hospital. During counseling, she disclosed that she was three months pregnant through her boy-friend named Sagar and her step-father, she was rescued by the Biramitrapur Police and a medical termination of pregnancy was performed on 15.06.2020 at Biramitrapur C.H.C. On 22.06.2020 as has been alleged by her before the Child Welfare Committee that Bada Babu of Biramitrapur P.S. was keeping sexual relationship with her since last three months and another policeman of Biramitrapur P.S. had also kept physical relationship with her once. Thereafter F.I.R. was lodged by one Shreebanta Jena, District Child Protection Officer, Sundargarh on 23.06.2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(n)/376(3)/313, IPC read with Section 6 of the POCSO Act against the petitioner and others as Raiboga P.S. Case No.41 of 2020 which was subsequently reregistered as C.I.D.(C.B) P.S. Case No.05 of 2020. Basing on the F.I.R., investigation was taken up. During course of investigation, the petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the court on 07.07.2020 under Sections 313/166/201/120-B, IPC, under Sections 17 and 21 of the POCSO Act, 2012 read with Section 3(2)(v) of S.C. & S.T (PA) Act, 2015.

3. The Petitioner herein has clarified his position on the present matter vide Letter No.184 dated 02.07.2020 by stating that the I.I.C of Biramitrapur P.S. had called him to his office at about 3.30 to 4.00 P.M. on 14.06.2020. The I.I.C. stated that they had rescued the victim of rape from Biramitrapur Bus stand area where she was wandering alone. The victim disclosed that her parents are staying in Delhi who are working as labourers and that she did not want to go to her relatives' house, as her stepfather is one of the accused persons. It was further stated that the victim requested that a procedure for abortion be conducted. The I.I.C. thereafter informed the Petitioner that he has made necessary arrangements for the victim's stay at C.W.C., Rourkela to keep the incident confidential in order to save the life of the minor girl.

4. It was further stated by the Petitioner that he could perform the procedure for termination of pregnancy in good faith in view of the mental health condition of the minor victim girl. He further allegedly stated that as the victim is a minor girl, as per the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 2003, certain legal procedures were needed to be complied with which the I.I.C. undertook to provide. After 15 minutes, the I.I.C. handed over the police requisition and sent the victim girl with the caretaker in Police vehicle around 5.45 P.M. The Petitioner stated that since the victim girl was a vagabond, the Police had taken upon themselves to act as her guardian and were acting as good Samaritans. By the time the victim reached the C.H.C., it was already 6 P.M. and the Petitioner decided to conduct the procedure on 15.06.2002 in order to afford an opportunity to the victim girl to compose her thoughts. Further, the lady Police Constable who was sent by the I.I.C. of the Biramitrapur P.S. in the police vehicle along

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
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top