AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img






Jangir Kaur Vs. State of Punjab [1993] INSC 390 (28 September 1993)

ACT:

HEAD NOTE:

ORDER

1.The appellant, Jangir Kaur, has been found guilty under Section 314 read with Section 107 IPC and sentenced to undergo four years' RI and to pay a fine 398 of Rs 500, in default, to undergo six months' RI. She along with one Phulan Devi were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge and both were convicted. They preferred an appeal to the High Court which was dismissed. The SLP filed by Phulan Devi was rejected and only leave was granted to the appellant. Hence the present appeal.

2.The prosecution case is as follows. One lady, Hamir Kaur wife of PW 4 Teja Singh had 2 1/2 or 3 months' old pregnancy. She wanted to get it terminated as she had already three issues. At that time, she consulted the appellant and on her advice on 12-7-1981 Hamir Kaur went to the house of the appellant and both came to the house of Phulan Devi, the other accused. Phulan Devi tried to cause the miscarriage for about an hour. Hamir Kaur felt acute pain and the operation remained incomplete. Ultimately, Hamir Kaur was taken to the hospital and the doctor found that a loop of small intestine was coming out from vagina.

Hamir Kaur ultimately died. Phulan Devi was charged under Section 314 IPC and was accordingly convicted and the appellant was convicted under Section 314 read with Section 107 IPC.

3.There is sufficient evidence against both the accused and also the dying declaration given by Hamir Kaur (Ex. PE).

4.So far as the appellant is concerned, it can be seen that she only tried to help Hamir Kaur and took her to the other accused, Phulan Devi whose efforts ultimately failed and resulted in the death of Hamir Kaur. In that sense, the appellant has abetted the offence. Taking the circumstances into consideration, while confirming the conviction, we reduce the sentence to two years.

5. Subject to this modification of sentence, the appeal is dismissed.

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys