High Court · 2011

Judgment

1. ‘4 • t • . I • . • I . •. . •• . . t .Jt’ a, ••%_••• . •. t r ‘ — :‘ i edfltr, tt •Iececi.td ti CI’1S t. ‘ItiLili, :;“.r.n. .!,- F. i I a’ j• C C. tU F ‘. a. 1 S. ,1.i eirrI: . : k ‘— hti F; • ‘ subj:tcd k. encitfl; sess :iemnat.,n, hic -:ndenc cnuid mt be chatterei. h’ hac cpedñra’:v depn4Pn! n the cross-exani,nitiun that he did lot go tc the dispericary of accus’:d No.1 i’nng vsitn his t. f. the rompatnnnt,. HO w& .rfr’.j y U € orn’aira—1 ir r’•’ ddughtr ;‘iac —I ; I WI .iv r v ztc :tsed 4G t ‘-Ic v ad’rits kit Were 31’ slips. H-. ‘So that thcr’_ r c in r •e ‘ t DOC 1 e ‘ r ‘ ic. Litt [ S.., r a’1r’.’ • ‘ i— n-’n rer t”in h€ vt th • k uCC’23’fl ‘ dl — ii:! 1.9 ttt; ; . .b .‘ c4 h J ii 1:.. ‘r . ,‘ I tamyntrbt ‘ •it tr,atrnent iv ‘h3 dtceased ‘; t’e boj.:tdI 31 accuccJ No.1 TI’” ndncs . P.W./ Iea.Iy d’Jc,3es tt i- q . r ci d L t cia d sbot’t tne tr:t1n2nr. The t1e•-med jt< r,, .:! ‘.v •‘ tr1at -he ‘;‘s :i’t r—&ing :se.. anti c’w :ir1m • ert .3bortfofl sI’ c r iLOp t t k r fl;fl4jfljfl hi also tat ci In • — - ‘nd a< ri ••lt 3t-teJ’_C to trw .1 pt,’ -‘rb t-..scC ;cJ t’3r r;tt• .4 .ci t i ii’-I J .•rin, p tIt ‘t ..5t t . •— ps’. . : . fr. ;. . . •• • i — . I ti’i b. —‘ d 1’ — ‘ — .7. r I vm ni iiia ahottc’d S[i” \t.rv r _jfi’ Er. r ‘.1 :c[..°;t.• u .it ‘ ‘i ‘j ‘i I” (Jts.i r’.• I ..‘,2T. I. • _•J• •“ • .—. %•%•• t • a 5 n .1 • I I N I antI tnat she kr:e.;c perso ,: . ns’’uu; •- ‘cr1n. - Par vaW:va I ad rrrratcd eveyt”13 tc ‘;‘

10. We I,na that the viacr’r of P Vsc 6 and : j atwai, rgr.nt, ronc,ctent -,. aLe We rio r1’it find aiyth:na to ‘1 %bHieve t’le ve c•: iS.t d.’d ‘. PW .6 ii: • r ‘ ,ste ‘p CdSCUttcO€ I v nj 1 r a. • . I(.! .ir r esnie (Of v_ ti • • I •• •rft . •. •v I, C- I, U t .4 C’flt v th \y’’r L r3L: IAfld ;j. the L•’strn:”z:I at E P 3 VI a r uft of ;dst:o P,tlflc b’tecl r q and ifrj tic ç:f L1e:rf.)ratci utcris iflteY:t’tt’, crs qtient po’ r r’g th%. w €rfc d t / he ‘or No.1. ‘nho aborted th pregnancy rron the oQinlon nt )W.1 s tr d he p ir t U c •aLoit’cn en s”r ;cr’.:1rcr. hr .ak’r a ‘t1..a ac3 .a ‘r1 n’4r ry i ‘I 13 tt. .S r 1’ I., r.j]hS’ i—’. ti ‘ 2.’ :Vj :—‘ .fl fr ‘ ‘rt .... I :. , r .r. t : 1k (a0i tin, I’ DL El p t ‘ :tr’ tv’1 ‘ze.’; -e .A thc ‘•‘.v nez ‘.r;cc tSt )c )t 3C e! F] i.3. I ueu o • i ot a q alif.cd ctor But t tact r’nIa; cd ‘hat !w :ia’ rz.a •:nq i nicp.’ -ary I- Jr eC r ‘nfl s t’eir sc. Jock r. abortcn ex’s ‘n the to’intrv. 3 IT Vi0 .i— v m I rliec rii cf ii VflK ‘t t • ‘o—tcr ;du c’ ‘duJ 0F•’,tt:r ‘f crqr....n• ‘ & .1 e. • 1 ) •.. I. ..

1.1,. t — -‘ t

9. •.. t •• I’ • — t. — 1 1 • Ii •‘ , •. • 1 j 1 ••i [ ‘•1 P1‘)i .1 4; it1P41)tIIDUJc.4.1’)I’ .clt .1’ .:c.!s’,I,flrIa.•at :.AIL‘ ,..J: ‘-‘L1..uaei:4.’:..C a lj. .jZ3 ••f’ ILeit. r““Lf’;Jjr’Lji‘‘i-’v4ret’CiJ•‘ ‘I 1CtSI.t)CIc4Ji 4 •j Sj $11 •S ) 3 . - I) (C) Li!II.!’3)4W10 waJ2)a’tpinou..“i.tjjs)PutI iiLJ,JI‘tf4;tu.e:,ru;r4cS •.‘.C•44:i:‘JI-’’)) ?LL -JA)IjJOIIflI4PJQS3fiJj ):flC) 3;3r’O&A1’t, W’)S ‘ • ‘-q. • u .‘ O_ • J aI• f A P

1.,. , .A • t i %J)4j(1.‘rn..._‘j. S. 1sf.I ;_‘_. t• .J4. 4 —:J‘‘ 4Z•._‘••: • • — — I a S — U •1 4 3 I t t r r I I r —I cft. c I I, 15 i ‘.‘,ei t tI” iin’1 “.1 I ib e ‘Ct P - t <:4 -‘ ‘ k

6. tm’ r i. at. ar\ en 1 ts [It agec’ ahout 86 years and he is heiridrier At he nmc o’ inC nt UtSU it:’’ d ar dçjt 81 r ;pir’cn. ‘a. 2thII:OSe vñI t Qr7t’] in ending arni 3Ct. ‘ cut’dv a’ m-•rc’ t n d ree’—-’t -V tq a 1* ;J •. L I. • r .‘ a’ r4• P ..i. ••1 t: ‘, r I I .f .... • ‘“‘ .. I I • •q — . .• — — .. • •—i .t . — — - 20 - a) b) c) The appeal filed by the State against accused No.2 stands dismissed. The judgment and order of acquittal dated 23.6.2009 passed in Spl. (SC & ST)CC No.5/2007 respect

accused No.2 stands confirmed. The judgment and order of acquittal sentencing accused No.1 offence under Sections 3(1)(xii) of SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, stands confirmed. The acquittal of the accused No.1 for the offence under Section 304-A of IPC stands set aside. Accused No.1 is convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304-A of IPC. The sentence of imprisonment already undergone him is sufficient punishment relating to imprisonment. HoweveG he is further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees ;tr, Try. ‘ussrd .“.iii j. If rh€-’ t;fle I, ‘.t Jt c’4 ) L ‘ i”( .. 3 —Is 71 ‘• a. — .t :•‘- — a ;;J . r.—. .-•-• — I II ‘;çs•’ j,r 7 t._) f. a tI. (H a ‘-‘&9 deLc. neJ. a! it.,Itflefltft ‘nni ‘JI” it i J I’ all ye n-prt I’ ‘ t1 t ia’ C OL’,t I. fl. (‘, SI ,s T N\ it’ i_ _:‘‘ ii. •:.: I C ri.. ‘r cttL ISt’j’l’ •‘ I ‘ 101_C ti%.(.It1 •‘I cI’ tS1 !fl). 1’ p -c ) L. ) I - 1 C .k Ci. ‘St (3 fl: —. rIt11’;.,1’ •t.( sd.,’ ‘ r’i,: Pt•t’Ch r (‘ C r’ t ‘I ‘dc ed vc )J(1 v’l Ji Xc Is -1.t IL I .t S. . 1% i( i 1 P)fl 3’,.) TV1’ + L I : ‘i’( t ;_ t .— . : . 1 •%_ ,f .