Conviction under Section 314 IPC cannot stand solely on extra judicial confession without corroboration, especially when the prosecution fails to establish the confession's voluntariness and requisite elements of the charge.

JUDGMENT :

A.C.BEHERA, J.

1. The appellant, by preferring this appeal, has challenged the Judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.02.1993 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi in Sessions Trial Case No.24 of 1992 arising out of G.R. Case No.205 of 1991 corresponding to Seranga P.S. Case No.34 of 1991 of the Court of learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Paralakhemundi.

2. The Appellant (accused) has been convicted for commission of offence under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. For the above conviction, he has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

3 (three) years.

Prosecution Case

3. The accused (Appellant) and the deceased are husband and wife respectively. Prior to marriage, there was illicit relationship among them. Due to such illicit relationship among them, the deceased had conceived. While the accused (Lasini Bhuyan) carrying three months of her pregnancy, that matter was brought to the light. For which, there was a meeting in their village. In that meeting, the accused and deceased both admitted their illicit relation between them and the accused had agreed to keep the deceased as his wife. After some days of that village meeting, the accused took the deceased for abortion of her pregnancy and returned after one day i.e. on 10.09.1991 with a dead child (foetus) and on that day, at about 01.00 P.M., the deceased felt severe pain in her belly. But, when the deceased was asked about the cause of her pain in their village meeting, then she (deceased) disclosed that, the accused had given some medicine to her and by the result of such medicine, her dead foetus came out.

4. The accused also told before the members of the Panchayat that he had given medicine for abortion of the deceased but on that day, the deceased (Lasani) expired on account of severe pain on her belly due to consumption of medicine provided by the accused for her abortion. Thereafter, one co-villager of the accused and the deceased, namely, Mane Bhuinya lodged a written FIR vide Ext.1 at Seranga Police Station alleging the above allegations against the accused.

5. Basing upon such FIR, in absence of the O.I.C of Seranga Police Station, S.I Mr. B.R. Praharaj registered Seranga Police Station Case No.34 of 1991 and he took up the investigation of the case.

During the investigation, he (I.O) examined the informant and the witnesses, visited the spot, held inquest over the dead body of the accused, prepared the inquest report (Ext.11), seized the dead foetus through seizer list (Ext.2), sent the dead body of the deceased through dead body Challan (Ext.9) for post mortem examination and accordingly, post mortem examination over the dead body of the deceased was conducted by the Doctor and the P.M. report (Ext.7) was prepared. Then, he (I.O.) arrested the accused and forwarded him to the Court. He (I.O.) received the P.M. report (Ext.7) and sent the viscera collected by the Doctor at the time of conducting the post mortem examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory (SFSL), Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar for chemical examination and report, then seized other incriminating documents and articles and after completing the investigation, he (I.O) submitted charge sheet against him (accused) under Section 304 and 314 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

6. Accordingly, after commitment of the case to the Court of Sessions from the Court of learned S.D.J.M, Paralakhemundi and on transfer of the same to the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Paralakhemundi, he (accused) was facing trial in that Court havi