1 CGHC010011312016 2026:CGHC:42018 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 17-09-2026 Judgment delivered on 26-09-2026 CRA No. 701 of 2016 1 - Awadhesh Jaiswal @ Babua S/o Gupta Jaiswal, Aged About 24 Years, Presently R/o Village Navagarh, Mahamaya Road, Ambikapur, P.S. Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh. Permanent R/o Village Dali, P.S. Chatarpur, Distt. Palamu Jharkhand., Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station AJAK, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja Chhattisgarh. Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Seema Verma, Advocate. For State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. CAV JUDGMENT 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 18-05-2016 passed by the learned Special Judge (under Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989), Surguja place Ambikapur (C.G.) in Special Sessions Case No. 90/2013, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 313 of the IPC and sentenced R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 1 year. Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.09.26 16:49:17 +0530 2 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 27-05-2013 the FIR was lodged by the victim PW-1 against the appellant with the allegation that since last one year the appellant sexually exploited her on the pretext of marriage by which she conceived pregnancy for about 3 months and when she asked for marriage, he refused to marry on the ground that she belongs to lower caste and on 25-05-2013 he administered pills for her miscarriage by which she suffered miscarriage of three months old fetus on 26-05-2013 and then the report has been lodged. The FIR Ex.-P/1 for the offence under Section 376, 493 and 313 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short ‘the SC/ST Act’) has been registered against the appellant. The victim was sent for her medical examination to District Hospital Ambikapur, District Surguja where she was medically examined by PW-6 Doctor Smt. Manju Ekka who gave her report Ex.-P/6A. While medically examining the victim the doctor has noticed tenderness on abdomen which are in the size of carrying pregnancy about 12 weeks, slight bleeding was present from her private part, cervix was open flesh like pieces were protruding from the cervical canal. The doctor opined that the victim is carrying 10-12 weeks’ pregnancy and she is under process of abortion. Spot map Ex.-P/2 was prepared by police and Ex.-P/3 was prepared by Patwari. Social status certificate of the victim was also seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/8. The appellant was arrested on 24-07-2013 and he too was sent for his medical examination to District Hospital Ambikapur where he was medically examined by PW-2 Doctor Ajay Gupta who gave his report Ex.-P/4 and opined that he has not found anything which shows that the appellant cannot able to do sexual intercourse. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 376, 493 and 313 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act before the learned 3 Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur. The case was committed to the Court of learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Ambikapur, District Surguja for its trial. 3. The learned trial court has framed the charge under Sections 376, in alternative Section 493, 313 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 11 witnesses. The statement under section 313 of CrPC of the appellant was also recorded in which he denied the circumstances that appears against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court acquitted the appellant from the offence under Section 376, in alternative Section 493 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, however, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 313 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant for the alleged offence. The victim is a married lady who was residing with her husband. She conceived pregnancy from her husband and the appellant nowhere concerned either with her family or with the pregnancy. There is no evidence that she conceived pregnancy from the appellant side and there is no DNA report of the fetus of the victim from which she suffered miscarriage that it was the pregnancy from the appellant side. There is no evidence that the appellant administered pills for miscarriage of the victim, no any wrapper of tablet has been seized nor any report regarding presence of any medicine in the body 4 of the victim has been produced. There is no evidence to the effect that the appellant forcefully administered the pills against consent of the victim. She would further submit that there are so many reasons for miscarriage and the prosecution has to establish that the miscarriage of the victim was due to administering the pills by the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. When the appellant has been acquitted from the offence under Section 376 of the IPC, in alternative Section 493 of the IPC, no liability can be fastened upon him for causing miscarriage of the victim as there was no reason for him to cause her miscarriage. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt and he may be acquitted from the alleged offence. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions the evidence of prosecution witnesses are reliable and sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the alleged offence. The victim has specifically stated in her evidence that the appellant developed physical relation with her on the pretext of marriage and she was sexually exploited by the appellant for about one year and when she conceived pregnancy the appellant administered pills by which she has suffered miscarriage. The doctor has defined in her evidence about normal miscarriage and miscarriage due to any medicine. He would further submit that even if the appellant has been acquitted from the offence under Section 376 or 493 of the IPC that itself is not sufficient to acquit the appellant from the offence under Section 313 of the IPC also. The evidence available on record clearly pointed towards guilt of the appellant that he administered pills for her miscarriage and therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is justified and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court carefully. 9. The present appeal confines only to the extent of Section 313 of the IPC as the appellant has been acquitted from the offence of Section 376, in alternative 493 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. It has not been stated by any of the parties that the said acquittal has been challenged in any higher forum. 10. PW-1 is victim who has stated in her evidence that she conceived pregnancy from the appellant side and he administered pills for her miscarriage. The appellant is her neighbour. At the time when the appellant administered pills she was conceived pregnancy for about 3 months and when her pregnancy came into knowledge of family members the appellant fled away. She further stated that she was married with a person of the same village, however, after 5-6 days she returned back to her parents house. She met with the appellant since 1 year back and he assured her that he will keep her as his wife. The appellant asked her to abort her pregnancy. She has not disclosed to anyone that the appellant administered her pills. In cross-examination she admitted that she married at village Patarapara Pratappur. She was not having physical relation with her husband. She admitted that she was having love affair with the appellant and both of them consensually made physical relation which continues for one year. Before lodging of the report she has not disclosed about her pregnancy to her parents. She admitted that she has not given the medical prescription nor any medicine to police. She admitted the execution of affidavit Ex.-D/1. She further stated that his mother has assured her that she would get her marriage performed with the appellant. At the time of execution of the affidavit Ex.-D/1 the appellant was in jail. She denied that the appellant has not administered any pills to her. 11. PW-4 is the mother of the victim. She stated in her evidence that in the month of September of the last year when she was about to proceed for 6 temple her daughter suffered abdominal pain and when she asked her about pain she disclosed that the appellant administered 5 pills for causing miscarriage. She took her to AJAK police station Ambikapur from where she was sent to District Hospital. The doctor has examined her and informed that she was carrying pregnancy for three months. When she asked about her pregnancy her daughter disclosed that it is from the appellant side. The appellant is her neighbour and he treated the victim as his sister. In cross- examination she admitted that her daughter had married at Patarapara and she left her husband and came back to her parents house. She did not know as to whether the relationship was continued between the appellant and her daughter for about 1 year. She stated in her cross-examination that she did not know the name of the doctor who has treated her daughter. She denied the suggestion that her daughter herself consumed the pills. 12. PW-11 is the sister-in-law of the victim. She deposed in her evidence that about 3 years back the victim complained about abdominal pain. She took her to nearby hospital where she was being treated by saline drip and in the night itself she was taken back. In the next morning she was again taken to the District Hospital where doctor has informed that she was carrying pregnancy. Since the victim was not residing with her husband she asked her about the pregnancy and then the victim disclosed that the pregnancy was from the appellant. This witness has been declared hostile and then she supported the prosecution’s case that the victim informed her that the appellant administered pills for her miscarriage by which she suffered miscarriage. In cross-examination she admitted that the victim had not resided at her matrimonial house for a long duration and after 2-3 months she came back to her parents house. She admitted that the victim has not informed her that she was having physical relation with the appellant. She also admitted that the victim has not informed her that the appellant has 7 committed any forceful act with her. Except the physical relation with the appellant the victim has not disclosed anything to her. 13. PW-6 Doctor Smt. Manju Ekka who medically examined the victim has stated in her evidence that on 27-05-2013 the victim was brought before her for medical examination. While medically examining her she noticed that her abdomen was bigger than the normal size and she was carrying pregnancy of about 12 weeks. She was complaining pain on her abdomen. There was small amount of blood coming out from her genitals. Her cerrvix was open and flesh like pieces were protruded from the cervix and abortion process was underway. She advised for her sonography test and her report is Ex.-P/6A. In her cross-examination she admitted that there is no external injuries found on the body of the victim. She denied the suggestion that bleeding could be started only when ovum is burst. She voluntarily stated that since the victim already taken pills for miscarriage, therefore, she undergone miscarriage. She admitted that the miscarriage may be in normal circumstances and may also be by some external cause. She voluntarily stated that in normal miscarriage fetus comes out from the body in one stroke. 14. These are the evidence available on record on which the appellant has been convicted. There is no DNA report to connect the appellant that he is the biological father of the fetus of the victim. 15. In case of Prabhu @ Kulandaivelu v. The State of Tamil Nadu, decided on 18 September, 2018 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No.1178 of 2011 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in para 9 and 10 that :- “9. The essential ingredient of Section 313 I.P.C. is that “Causing miscarriage without woman’s consent”. But as per the evidence of Dr. Valli (PW-8) consent of PW-1 was taken and, therefore, it cannot be 8 said that the ingredients of Section 313 I.P.C. has been established by the prosecution. 10. That apart, as seen from the evidence of PW-8, even when PW-1 was brought to the hospital, she was already bleeding and had lower abdominal pain and there was nothing in evidence to connect that act with the appellant-accused. In the light of evidence of Dr. Valli (PW-8) and other evidence, the conviction of the appellant under Section 313 I.P.C. cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside.” 16. To bring home a charge under Section 313 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the prosecution is required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the woman was pregnant, miscarriage was caused and such miscarriage was the consequence of an act committed without the consent of the woman. Since Section 313 incorporates the offence defined in Section 312 IPC, the prosecution is also required to establish the casual nexus between the act attributed to the accused and resulting miscarriage. Mere proof of pregnancy followed by miscarriage, in the absence of cogent evidence connecting the act of the accused with the miscarriage and establishing want of consent, would not be sufficient to sustain conviction under Section 313 of the IPC. The medical evidence proving miscarriage is not, by itself, sufficient to prove the offence under Section 313 of the IPC. The prosecution must prove both causation by the accused and absence of consent beyond reasonable doubt. This distinction can become decisive where the woman herself took abortion pills, went to hospital voluntarily or medical record indicates consent. 17. In the present case, from the evidence of the victim she nowhere stated that she had not consented for miscarriage. The victim PW-1 has not stated in her evidence that the miscarriage was caused without her consent and thus, there is lack of sufficient evidence in prosecution’s case with respect to the 9 offence of Section 313 of the IPC. Therefore, in such circumstances the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 18. Accordingly, by giving benefit of doubt the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. He is acquitted from the offence under Section 313 of the IPC and his conviction and sentence for the said offence is hereby set aside. The appellant is reported to be on bail, his bail bonds shall continue for a further period of six months as provided under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 19. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil