Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 allows termination of pregancy up to 24 weeks for sexual assault and rape victims. This was taken as a ground before the Madhya Pradesh High Court, to seek an order of abortion for the prosecutrix, alleging rape.

The High Court taking a serious note of this ‘innovative method’ devised by the father and the prosecutrix, sentenced them to 6 months in jail. Involvement of the Son was also found therefore he was also held guilty of criminal contempt in the entire foul play, for breaching the direction of the Court.

In the present matter, the father and prosecutrix (daughter) had sought an order from the Court allowing abortion, alleging rape by the accused. The Court had thus granted an order to that effect, allowing the same. Subsequently, the Court was apprised of the fact that the prosecutrix and her brother did not appear before the Trial Court in spite of clear directions by the Court. The father had alleged pressure from the local counsel.

The Court found the entire facts were misconceived and further took note of the false averments that the father had made in re-examination. The father had submitted that he never got his daughter's pregnancy aborted although the seizure memo of the fetus was admitted by him. On the basis of the medical evidences and reports, the Court found that the alleged accused in the matter was not the father, and could trace the biological father of the unborn child, who turned out to be the cousin of the prosecutrix.  Therefore, the allegations of rape could not sustain.

Further, it was established that the father had knowledge of the consensual relationship between his daughter (prosecutrix) and her cousin, but had suppressed the fact.

Noting that the prosecutrix has attained majority, the Court noted, “They have succeeded in getting the prosecutrix aborted whereas the fact that she got conceived from his cousin brother Bhagwat Yadav was conveniently suppressed. The innovative method adopted by the prosecutrix and her father to kill an unborn baby is against the very purpose of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and the same cannot be taken in a light manner”.

On the request to show sympathy while sentencing,  Justice G.S Ahluwalia opined,  “Under The circumstances, no sympathy can be shown to the persons who have innovated a very unique idea of getting an unborn baby killed by suppressing the identity of the biological father of the fetus.

While relying on Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and another vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in (2006) 3 SCC 374, the Court awarded 6 months imprisonment and further awarded 6 months to father, daughter and the son for contempt, where sentences are to run consecutively.

Case Title: SUO MOTO IN THE MATTER OF THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH