2000 (3) TMI 1104 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Conviction under Section 314/34 IPC.
2. Extra judicial confession as basis for conviction.
3. Common intention under Section 34 IPC.
4. Competency and approval under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971.
5. Appropriateness of the sentence awarded.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Conviction under Section 314/34 IPC:
The appellant, Chauhan, was convicted under Section 314/34 IPC and sentenced to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 10,000, with an additional two years of imprisonment in case of default. The co-accused, Sharma, was also convicted under Section 314 IPC with a similar sentence. Their convictions were upheld by the Madhya Pradesh High Court. Chauhan was granted leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, while Sharma was not.

2. Extra Judicial Confession as Basis for Conviction:
Chauhan's conviction was partly based on his extra-judicial confession to Lalita, Alpana's mother, where he admitted to having illicit relations with Alpana, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortion attempt at Sharma's clinic. The court held that the extra-judicial confession could be considered, noting that it was natural under the circumstances and supported by other evidence, including the recovery of instruments from Sharma's scooter and books on abortion from his clinic.

3. Common Intention under Section 34 IPC:
The court discussed the application of Section 34 IPC, which deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It was established that Chauhan and Sharma had a common intention to cause Alpana's miscarriage, leading to her death. The court emphasized that common intention can be inferred from the circumstances and does not require direct evidence. The presence and participation of Chauhan in the abortion process facilitated the criminal act, thus attracting Section 34 IPC.

4. Competency and Approval under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971:
Sharma was not a qualified medical practitioner under the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, and his clinic lacked government approval and necessary facilities for conducting abortions as required under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971. The court highlighted that the Act's provisions supersede the IPC due to the non-obstante clause in Section 3, which protects registered medical practitioners performing abortions in compliance with the Act. Sharma's lack of qualifications and clinic approval rendered the abortion illegal.

5. Appropriateness of the Sentence Awarded:
The court considered the sentence of seven years of rigorous imprisonment for Chauhan to be on the higher side. It reduced the imprisonment to one and a half years (18 months) but increased the fine to Rs. 25,000, with an additional one-year imprisonment in case of default. The fine, if realized, was directed to be paid to Lalita Soni, Alpana's mother.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld Chauhan's conviction under Section 314/34 IPC, affirming that the death of Alpana was caused by an act done with the intent to cause miscarriage, facilitated by the common intention of both Chauhan and Sharma. The court also adjusted Chauhan's sentence, balancing the severity of the crime with considerations of justice. The appeal was thus partly allowed.