J U D G M E N T

The appellant is the accused No.1 in S.C.406 of 2007 on the file of the Sessions Court (Mahila Court) Cuddalore. The appellant along with two others who were charged and tried for an offence under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code. On conclusion of trial, the Trial Court had convicted the appellant and had acquitted the other two accused. In the above case the prosecution had examined 10 witnesses and had marked Exs.P1 to P6. No witness were examined and no documents were marked by the accused.

2.The case of the prosecution is that on 10.06.2005 at about

09.00 a.m. the accused had cut a tree in the garden of PW1, when it was questioned, the accused had assaulted the said Saraswathy by hands and kicked on her stomach, due to which, she had a forcible abortion, for which she had preferred a complaint. On completion of investigation the prosecution had filed the charge sheet against the appellant and two others.

3.PW1 victim states that the appellant/first accused had kicked her, due to which she felled down and further, he kicked on her stomach, the other accused had pulled her legs and they also abused her, due to the fall, she developed stomach pain and she was taken to the Public Health Centre at Melampattampakkam, administered first aid and thereafter, referred to the Cuddalore Government Hospital, where she was treated for bleeding and admitted as in-patient for three days. Thereafter, she had gone to her native place at Tirunelveli, for taking native treatment.

4.PW2-husband of PW1, who is running a textile shop coming to know about the incident reached home and found that his wife was lying down and he had taken her to the hospital.

5.PW3-an employee of PW2, in his presence the Observation Mahazar was prepared.

6.PW4-relative of PWs'1 and 2 had reached the scene of occurrence after coming to know about that PW1 being assaulted by the accused.

7.PW5 evidence is in the nature of hear-say. This witness was treated as hostile.

8.PW6 is the Doctor attached to Primary Health Centre, Melpattambakkam, who had administered first aid treatment to PW1 on 10.06.2005 and referred PW1 to Cuddalore Government Hospital.

9.PW7-Doctor of Government Hospital, Cuddalore had examined PW1 on 10.06.2005 and had administered injection and given treatment for abortion.

10.PW8-Resident Medical Doctor of Government Hospital Cuddalore had examined PW1 on 10.06.2005 at 3.25 p.m. and through him Ex.P3, the Accident Register had been marked. This witness had examined PW1 on 17.06.2005.

11.PW9, the Sub-Inspector of Police attached to Nellikuppam Police Station had received the complaint from PW1 on 04.08.2005 and registered an FIR in Crime No.986 of 2005 for the offence under Section 316 of the Indian Penal Code.

12.PW10 is the Inspector of Police, Nellikuppam Police Station, who on receipt of FIR on 04.08.2005 had visited the scene of occurrence, prepared the Observation Mahazar Ex.P4 and Rough Sketch Ex.P5, thereafter, on completion of investigation had filed the charge sheet against the accused.

13.The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that PW1 and the appellant are neighbours and there is a dispute with regard to the sharing of the backyard between them and a false case has been foisted against him. It is further contended that in Ex.P1-complaint was given only on 04.08.2005, for the occurrence of 10.06.2005. The reason for the delay in giving the complaint for the occurrence of 10.06.2005 is that the earlier complaint has been lost and hence, the complaint dated 04.08.2005 was received and in this complaint nowhere it is mentioned about PW1 being pregnant and which fact is known to the appellant. 14.There is no other witnesses to corroborate the version of PW1. PW2 her husband, PW3-the employee of PW2, PW4-relative of PW1 and PW2, PW5-friend of PW2 are the witnesses, who have not witnessed the occurrence and have reached the scene of occurrence latter. These witnesses are all in the nature of hear-say. It is further subm