In a criminal revision, the High Court examined the impugned order summing the accused's parents and sister-in-law as accused under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. in a cheating case involving induced pregnancy termination.
The Criminal Revision Case is allowed and the order impugned is set aside.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO
Crl.R.C.No.1475 of 2005
ORDER
This revision is preferred against the order dated 01.07.2005 passed by the learned Principal Assistant Sessions Judge, Kurnool in S.C.No.100 of 2005.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that the accused, by name Shaik Sharath, who was unmarried, had induced one Harijana Naddi Venkateswaramma to believe that he would marry her and had sexual intercourse with her, as a result of which, she conceived pregnancy. When she insisted to marry, the accused induced her to believe that he will marry her if she get rid of the pregnancy, thereupon, she being the student of nursing has consumed some tablets that resulted in mis-carriage and bleeding. Then she approached the doctor, who gave some medicine to stop the bleeding. Thereafter, when she approached the accused to marry her, he totally disowned her. She also tried to bring pressure on the accused by conducting Dharna etc., and having failed in all her efforts, she lodged a report before Dhone Police Station on 18.07.2003, and a case in Cr.No.140 of 2003 was registered against the accused under Sections 420 and 313 IPC. During the course of investigation, the Sub-Inspector of Police, Dhone recorded the statements of witnesses concerned and arrested the accused on 19.07.2003. After completion of investigation, he filed the charge sheet.
3. During the course of trial, the victim-de facto complainant was examined as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P1 on behalf of the prosecution. In view of the evidence of P.W.1, the contents of Ex.P1 report and also the statement of P.W.1 recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C, the trial Court observed that the parents and sister-in-law of the accused i.e, the petitioner herein, who assured P.W.1 to perform the marriage with the accused if she terminates her pregnancy, also involved in the commission of offence, and issued summons under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. to the parents of the accused, namely Sanjanna, Rathnamma and the petitioner to try them as accused along with the accused already on record. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present revision.
4. P.W1 stated in her evidence that the accused, his parents and his sister-in-law i.e., the petitioner asked her to go for termination of pregnancy and assured her that the marriage between her and the accused will be performed later. She further stated that the accused, his parents and the petitioner took her to a private hospital of Dr. Subhani, where they got her 3rd month of pregnancy terminated. As per the evidence of P.W.1, the petitioner only advised the victim to go for termination of pregnancy for the purpose of arranging marriage with the accused. Therefore, persuasion of petitioner to go for termination of pregnancy would not amount to commission of offence. Hence, this Court is of the view that the order impugned is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly, set aside.
5. In view of the above, the Criminal Revision Case is allowed setting aside the order impugned. Miscellaneous petitions filed in this revision, if any, shall stand closed.
_______________ RAJA ELANGO, J
26th November, 2012 sj
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order impugned summing the parents and petitioner as accused under Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. is liable to be set aside.
Whether the petitioner's persuasion to terminate pregnancy for the purpose of arranging marriage amounts to commission of offence.
Whether the petitioner's role limited to advising termination precludes her from being implicated in the alleged fraud.
SANJANNARATHNAMMA AND PETITIONER
STATE
RAJA ELANGO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
