IPC Section 313 - Causing Miscarriage without Woman's Consent

Any Famous Judgment w.r.t. IPC Section 313:

Hasi Mohan Barman & Anr vs State Of Assam & Anr, 2007: This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 2.1.2007 of Gauhati supreme court by which the appeal preferred by the appellants was disposed of with the modification that the sentence of five years R.I. and fine of Rs.7,000/- imposed upon each of the appellants under Section 313 read with Section 34 IPC by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, was reduced to three years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/-. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant Hasi Mohan Barman was having a romance with the primary informant Haleswari Barman, which subsequently developed into a physical relationship and as a result thereof she became pregnant. The villagers put pressure upon Hasi Mohan Barman to marry her which he declined. He asked her to abort the kid which she refused to try to do. Thereafter, on the night of the incident Hasi Mohan Barman took her, Haleswari Barman to the pharmacy of co-accused Abinash Biswas, who administered a certain injection whereupon she became unconscious and the child was aborted. She was administered Saline and thus the appellant Hasi Mohan Barman kept her at 'Pampghar' for about nine days wherefrom she was taken to her parent’s house. After a few days, Haleswari Barman lodged an FIR against both the appellants. The police, after investigation, submitted a charge sheet only against Hasi Mohan Barman but subsequently, co-accused Abinash Biswas was also summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to face the trial.

The High Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence, has recorded a finding that she was pregnant through the appellant Hasi Mohan Barman who wanted her to abort the child. As Haleswari Barman declined to try to do so, Hasi Mohan Barman with the assistance of Abinash Biswas caused a miscarriage of the pregnancy without the consent of Haleswari Barman. The supreme court accordingly held that it had been established beyond any shadow of a doubt that both the appellants had committed an offence under Section 313 IPC. The supreme court thus maintained the conviction but reduced the sentence from seven years R.I. and a fine of Rs.7,000/- to 3 years R.I. and a fine of Rs.5,000/- of both the appellants.

Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure says that the offences punishable under the sections of the Indian legal code (45 of 1860) laid out in the primary two columns of the table next following could also be compounded by the persons mentioned within the third column of that table. A perusal of Section 320 will show that the offence under Section 313 IPC isn't compoundable. Therefore, the consent given by the wife Haleswari Barman, or the affidavit filed by her cannot be utilized for the purpose of recording a finding of acquittal in favor of the accused appellants. There are several other decisions of this Court wherein the factor of compromise has been taken into consideration and the sentence has been reduced mostly to the period already undergone and they are Bankat and another vs. the State of Maharashtra (2005) 1 SCC 343, Badrilal vs. the State of M.P. (2005) 7 SCC 55 and Jetha Ram and others vs. the State of Rajasthan (2006) 9 SCC 255. Following the view taken in the above-noted cases, we are of the opinion that the complainant and the principal accused having already married will be in the interest of justice if the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. The appeal is accordingly partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 313 IPC is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already undergone which appears to be about ten months. The fine imposed upon the appellants is also set aside. The appellants are on bail. Their sureties and bail bonds are discharged.

Frequently Asked Questions

What Is the Burden of Proof in Cases Under Section 313 of the IPC?

The burden of proof in cases under Section 313 of the IPC lies with the accused, who must prove their innocence. This requires evidence that they did not cause a miscarriage without the woman's consent.

Can a Woman Be Charged Under Section 313 for Causing a Miscarriage Herself?

A woman can be charged under Section 313 of the IPC for causing a miscarriage herself if it is done without her consent. The offence carries imprisonment for life or up to ten years, along with a possible fine.

What Is the Punishment for Concealing the Birth of a Child Under Section 318 of the IPC?

The punishment for concealing the birth of a child under Section 318 of the IPC is imprisonment for up to two years, along with a possible fine. This offence is considered a cognisable and bailable offence.

Who Can File a Complaint for the Offense of Concealing the Birth of a Child?

Any person, including the victim, their relatives, or friends, can file a complaint for the offence of concealing the birth of a child. This offence is governed by Section 318 of the Indian Penal Code.

How Does the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 Protect the Rights of Women Seeking Abortion?

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act of 1971 protects the rights of women seeking abortion by providing a legal framework for safe and legal terminations. It balances reproductive health rights with protecting women's health and well-being.