The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the foetus to be 'quick' and the knowledge of the accused about the pregnancy to establish the offences under Sections 313 and 316 IPC.

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

1. Present appeal has been filed by Dal Chand alias Dali son of Soni. He was aged 53 years on the day, the impugned judgment was pronounced. The appellant was named as an accused in case FIR No.77 dated 26.04.2000 registered at Police Station Chhainsa under Sections 313 and 316 IPC. The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad, vide its judgment dated 16th October, 2002, held the appellant guilty of offences punishable under Sections 313 and 316 IPC and vide a separate order dated 22nd October, 2002, sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 ¼ years under Section 313 IPC. The appellant was further sentenced under Section 316 IPC to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/-in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 ¾ years.

2. The facts of the prosecution case can be gathered from the FIR Ex.PF. Devi wife of Daya Chand, aged about 25 years got recorded report No.5 in the Daily Diary Register on 8th March, 2000. The report has been proved on record as Ex.PD. It is stated therein that on 8th March, 2000, complainant Devi appeared in the Police Station at about 10.00 a.m. and stated that she is a resident of Mohna and does labour work. On the day of occurrence, i.e. 8th March, 2000, at about 9.00 a.m. when she was cleaning the drain in front of her house, accused Dal Chand alias Dali son of Soni started abusing her and stated that she would be taught a lesson for giving beatings to the children. Saying so, he hit the complainant in her abdomen and back with the chain of motorcycle. The accused also gave blows with the motorcycle chain on her legs and hands. Complainant Devi raised an alarm of ‘Mar Diya Mar Diya’ and on hearing the noise, Pappu son of Samma and Sanjay, nephew of the complainant, were attracted to the spot. They rescued the complainant from the hands of accused, otherwise more injuries would have been caused to her.

3. The appellant was tried along with his brother Mohran and wife Lachho. The trial Court has acquitted Mohran and Lachho.

4. Complainant Devi appeared as PW-5 and stated that on 8th March, 2000 at about 9.00 a.m. she was cleaning the water drain in front of her house, when the accused Dal Chand alias Dali came and stated that she would have to face the consequences of beating the children. Accused gave abuses to the complainant. Then accused Mohran and Lachho also came there. Accused Lachho caught hold of the complainant and Dal Chand alias Dali gave beatings to her with the chain of motorcycle in her abdomen, head and hands. Accused Mohran had also given fist blows in the abdomen of complainant. Due to these injuries, the complainant suffered miscarriage, as she was pregnant of about two months. The complainant went to the Police Station and lodged a report Ex.PD, which was entered as report No.5 in the Daily Diary Register.

5. Sanjay, another eye-witness of the occurrence, appeared as PW-1 and corroborated the testimony of complainant Devi PW-5.

6. The complainant was medico-legally examined by Dr.Vini Rastogi PW-7 on 8th March, 2000. Following injuries were found on her person:

“1. Lacerated wound 5 cm x 2 mm on scalp over right parital bone.

2. Lacerated wound 2 cm x 3 mm on the same area. X-ray was advised.

3. Abrasion 2 cm above right ulna tuberoocity. Flaxor surface. Decrease movement at wrist joint.

4. Tenderness hypogasprium on PV no abnormality detected. Uterus normal in size. There is history of lactational amenorrhea.”

7. The medical officer also advised x-ray of skull with regard to injury No.1 and x-ray of left forearm with regard to injury No.3. The complainant was further advised to undertake x-ray of her abdomen. In cross-examination, this witness stated that in medico-legal examination of the complainant, she found no