Gauhati High Court

Page No.# 1/13 vs State Of Assam on 13 November, 2025

                                                                     Page No.# 1/13

GAHC010248642014




                                                                2025:GAU-AS:15474

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
   (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                Case No. : Crl.A./145/2014

            MUSTT. KUDRATANI KHATUN @ RAMISA KHATOON
            W/O LATE AHAMAD ALI, R/O VILL. KAPOUJARI, P.O. KARATIPAM, P.S.
            MORIGAON, DIST. MORIGAON, ASSAM.



            VERSUS

            STATE OF ASSAM


            2:MD. AHAMAD ALI

             S/O SOMSER ALI
             P.O. KARATIPAM
             P.S. MORIGAON
             DIT. MORIGAON
             ASSAM

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR.H R A CHOUDHURY, MR.A ALAM,MR.A AHMED,MR.M
ALAMGEER

Advocate for the Respondent : , ,PP, ASSAM,
                                                                    Page No.# 2/13




                                   -B E F O R E -
                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAUSHIK GOSWAMI


For the Appellant (s)    : Mr. H R A Choudhury, Mr. A Ahmed,
                          Mr. A Alam, Mr. M Alamgeer, Advocates.

For the Respondent(s) : Mr. M P Goswami, APP for the State.




Date on which judgment is reserved :          N/A


Date of pronouncement of judgment :           13.11.2025


Whether the pronouncement is of the
operative part of the judgment ?      :       No.



Whether the full judgment has been

Pronounced                                :    Yes.
                                                                       Page No.# 3/13



                          JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

Heard Mr. Anisul Alam, learned counsel for the accused appellant. Also heard Mr. M P Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No.36/2012, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (Seven) years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thousand), in default of payment of fine, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for further six months.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased, who was about eight months pregnant, had requested the appellant to assist her in terminating the pregnancy as she was already a mother of five children and did not desire to continue the pregnancy. The appellant, without any medical qualification or authority, attempted to terminate the pregnancy by inserting a root-like object into her womb. After the foetus died, the appellant inserted a fishing hook into the private parts of the deceased to pull out the pieces of the unborn child.

4. The informant (PW-1), the sister-in-law of the deceased, on hearing the cries of the deceased, reached the spot and found the appellant pulling out flesh pieces with a hook while the deceased repeatedly cried in pain and asked him to stop and take her to hospital. The appellant, however, continued the procedure, assuring her not to worry. During the act, the hook broke inside the deceased. The deceased later succumbed to excessive hemorrhage and septic Page No.# 4/13

complications.

5. Accordingly, a case was registered under Sections 314/316/34 of the IPC and after completion of investigation Charge-sheet was submitted against the accused/appellant under Sections 314/316 of the IPC.

6. During trial, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses including the Medical Officer and the Investigating Officer. After closure of the prosecution evidence, statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein she denied generally and declined to examine any witness in defence.

7. The learned Sessions Court, after completion of arguments, by the impugned judgment convicted the accused/appellant under Section 314 IPC and sentenced thereof. Situated thus, the instant appeal has been preferred.

8. Mr. Anisul Alam, learned counsel for the appellant, in his usual fairness, submits that the appellant does not dispute the conviction on merits. However, the sentence of 7 (Seven) years term is excessive and disproportionate considering that the deceased herself requested the abortion; the appellant is more than 70 years old; and there was no intention to cause death.

9. Per contra, Mr. M. P. Goswami, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State relied on the ocular testimony of PW-1, corroborating medical evidence and circumstances proving the presence and actions of the appellant at the crucial time. He further submits that the sentence of 7 (Seven) years imprisonment is totally proportionate to the nature and circumstances of the crime.

10. I have given my prudent consideration to the arguments advanced by the Page No.# 5/13

learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. I have also duly considered the case laws cited at the bar.

11. PW-1, Fatema Begum deposed that about a year ago the deceased died in the occurrence. She further deposed that at about 1.00 P.M. she heard hue and cry of the deceased and accordingly rushed to her house wherein she met the daughter of the deceased (PW-3) who told her that the accused/ appellant tried to bring out the dead baby from the womb of the deceased by a fishing hook. She further deposed that when she went inside the house she saw that the accused/appellant was bringing out pieces of flesh of the dead child through the private part of the deceased by using a big hook for catching fish ( Barashi). She further deposed that upon seeing the same she tried to stop the accused/appellant and advised her to take the deceased to the hospital, however, the accused/appellant assured that nothing would happen. Since the accused/ appellant did not allow her to take the deceased to the hospital so she left and accordingly reported the matter to Ahmed (PW-8) and Khudeja (PW-6). She further deposed that on the next day PW-8 and father of the deceased (PW-9) took the deceased to Morigaon Civil Hospital where she died in the night. During cross-examination, she further clarified that the deceased was in the state of talking while she arrived there and the deceased was shouting due to pain.

12. PW-2 deposed that his grand-daughter Ismara (PW-3) i.e. the daughter of the deceased informed him that the accused/appellant gave medicine to her mother to abort her pregnancy as she did not want any more children and after taking the said medicine the baby died in the womb and after 3/ 4 days the deceased died at Morigaon hospital. She further deposed that the deceased at that time was eight months pregnant.

Page No.# 6/13

13. PW-3, Ismara Begum, the daughter of the deceased, deposed that one day the accused/appellant came to their house to take bamboo in exchange of medicine to abort pregnancy of her mother. During conversation, she heard that her mother apprehended to take medicine as she might die, but the accused/appellant assured that nothing would happen as so many persons got relief by her medicine. She further deposed that the accused/appellant thereafter brought the medicine and forcibly administered to her mother. On that day abortion was not taken place so the accused/appellant again gave medicine on the next day. PW-3 further deposed that she then informed her grandfather, who came with her Jetha, Ahmed Ali and wanted to take her mother to hospital but the accused/appellant did not allow and forcibly tried to bring out the dead baby by using hook. She further deposed that her mother shouted when the accused/appellant took her near the tube well for bath and thrown away the apparatus like hook for catching fish. Her mother told that the hook was broken inside her womb and she died at the hospital. During cross- examination, she clarified that her mother was conscious and able to speak while she was taken to hospital.

14. PW-4 deposed that at the time of occurrence he was waiting on the road side about 150 meters away from the place of occurrence and saw police of Morigaon P.S. visiting the place of occurrence. He heard from the mother of the deceased that the deceased died as the accused terminated her pregnancy. Police seized two pieces of fish catching hook from the house of the deceased. He heard that the seized fish catching hook were used by the accused to bring out the dead baby from the uterus of the deceased after terminating pregnancy.

15. PW-5, Dr. Chittaranjan Haldar is the Medical Officer in the instant case. PW-5 deposed that on 31.07.2011 he performed the post-mortem examination Page No.# 7/13

of Hawa Khatun (deceased) in connection with Morigaon P.S. G.D Entry No.1025 dated 31.07.2011 and found that Scalp, Membrane, Brain, Liver, spleen, kidneys are pale. Uterus is of 20 weeks size with remnants of the parts of the products conceptus present. Pleura, larynx and trachea, right lung, left lung, pericardium, vessels are pale. Paritorium full of fluid with puj. Mouth, pharynx, esophagus are pale. He further deposed that he found the following injuries :-

1. Uterus is pale and petolus and is 20 weeks size. Remnanat of the parts of the product of conceptus present inside the uterus.

2. Fluids puj present inside the peritoneum.

He further deposed that in his opinion the cause of death is due to shock as a result of haemorrhage and septicemia following mid trimester incomplete abortion.

16. PW-6, deposed that the occurrence took place about three years ago in the house of Idrish Ali. She heard that the accused terminated the pregnancy of Hawa Khatun by using fish catching hook for which the deceased died at Morigaon Civil Hospital.

17. PW-7, deposed that the occurrence took place in the house of Idrish Ali. The deceased told her that the accused gave medicine to terminate her pregnancy and assured that the pregnancy could be aborted. She further deposed that the deceased told her that the accused used fish catching hook to abort her pregnancy. The deceased was thereafter taken to Morigaon Hospital where she died.

18. PW-8, Ahmed Ali deposed that the deceased is the wife of his younger brother and the accused/appellant gave medicine to abort her pregnancy. After Page No.# 8/13

two days the accused/appellant told him that she gave medicine to Hawa Khatun (deceased) and assured him that if something happen, it is her risk. After one day he found the condition of Hawa Khatun was serious and then he went to take her to Morigaon Civil Hospital, however, the accused told him to wait for a day and then if she cannot terminate then to take her to the hospital. This witness further deposed that on the next day the daughter of Hawa Khatun informed him that the accused terminated the pregnancy of Hawa Khatun by using fish catching hook and brought out the unborn baby, part by part and the condition of the deceased became serious. Hawa Khatun was taken to Morigaon Civil Hospital and she died in the night. This witness has deposed that he filed the ejahar as the husband of the deceased was at Meghalaya. During cross- examination, he clarified that the deceased was in a position to talk while she was taken to hospital.

19. PW-9, Idris Ali stated that the deceased Hawa Khatun is his wife. He was at Meghalaya while the occurrence took place. He was informed that condition of his wife is serious due to forcible termination of pregnancy by the accused and he advised to admit her at the hospital and he came to his house on the next day. On his arrival he found his wife dead and post-mortem was done. His daughter Ishma Khatun told him that the accused first gave medicine to his wife and after consuming that medicine the baby died in her womb and then the dead baby was brought out from the womb by using fish catching hook and as a result she died.

20. PW-10 deposed that on 31.07.2011 he carried out dead body from Morigaon Civil Hospital to Gagalmari in his Indica car and on his arrival the persons accompanied the dead body told him that it would be a police case and accordingly the dead body was taken to Morigaon Police Station in his vehicle Page No.# 9/13

from where it was again sent to Morigaon Civil Hospital. PW-10 deposed that the dead body was seen by one Magistrate and thereafter, report has been prepared where he put his signature.

21. PW-11, Pradip Chamua deposed that on 31.07.2011, the O.C. Morigaon P.S. received an ejahar from Ahmed Ali of Karatipam village which was registered as Morigaon P.S. Case No.134/2011 under Section 314/316/34 IPC and he was entrusted to investigate. The dead body of the deceased was produced at the Police Station and accordingly he informed Magistrate Jayanta Kumar Bora to inquest on the dead body. Accordingly the Magistrate came and inquest was done on the dead body. The dead body was thereafter sent to Morigaon Civil Hospital for post-mortem examination. He visited the place of occurrence, arrested the accused person, examined the witnesses and recorded the statements and after completion of investigation charge-sheet was submitted by S.I. Jogendra Nath Deka.

22. It appears from the above, that the deceased, 8 months pregnant, requested the appellant to assist in terminating her pregnancy as she had already five children. The accused appellant inserted a root like object into her womb to induce in abortion. When the foetus died, the accused appellant inserted a fishing hook into the private parts of the deceased to pull out pieces of the unborn child. PW-1, the sister-in-law rushed in on hearing cries and witnesses the accused appellant forcibly pulling out flesh fragments with a hook while the deceased bagged him to stop and take her to a hospital. The deceased died shortly thereafter due to massive hemorrhage and septicemia.

23. Section 314 of the IPC prescribes punishment for death caused by act done with intent to cause miscarriage, which read as under :-

Page No.# 10/13

"314. Death caused by act done with intent to cause miscarriage.---Whoever, with intent to cause the miscarriage of a woman with child, does any act which causes the death of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine;

If act done without woman's consent -- and if the act is done without the consent of the woman, shall be punished either with imprisonment for life, or with the punishment above mentioned."

24. Section 314 IPC punishes voluntarily causing the death of a woman by an act done with intent to cause miscarriage, even if the miscarriage itself was done with the woman's consent. The provision squarely applies.

25. In the present case, the consent of the deceased for abortion does not exonerate the appellant because the act was performed:

      (i)      without medical qualification,

      (ii)     in a crude, unhygienic, invasive manner, and

      (iii)    in a manner imminently dangerous to life.

26. The post-mortem doctor (PW-5) opined that death was due to massive hemorrhage and septicemia caused by crude and unhygienic manipulation for abortion. Medical findings corroborated that injuries were consistent with insertion of a sharp fishing hook.

27. The medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular account. The post- mortem doctor (PW-5) has categorically stated that:

        (i)      the uterus was perforated and infected,

        (ii)    pieces of the foetus were torn out by sharp manipulation, and
                                                                         Page No.# 11/13

        (iii)    the death resulted from hemorrhage and septic complications

attributable directly to the procedure done by the appellant.

28. The Apex Court has emphasized that medical evidence corroborating ocular testimony strengthens the prosecution case.

29. PW-1, the sister-in-law of the deceased, is an eyewitness to the crucial act of the appellant inserting the fishing hook and pulling out flesh pieces despite the deceased's cries. Her testimony is natural, consistent, and unimpeached. The Apex Court has held that a natural witness should ordinarily be relied upon unless major infirmity is established. In the present case, nothing was elicited to shake her testimony.

30. The other witnesses supported the surrounding circumstances including the presence of the appellant in the deceased's house and the immediate events leading to her death.

31. The conduct of the appellant in continuing to pull out fetus fragments even after the deceased pleaded to be taken to hospital squarely establishes culpable negligence of the highest degree and illegal manipulation endangering life.

32. Upon perusal of the evidence as indicated above, this Court finds that the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. This Court finds no perversity, infirmity, or illegality in the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court. The findings are based on clear, cogent, and trustworthy evidence.

33. The appellant neither disputed the occurrence in material particulars nor challenged the conviction on merits. Her principal submission is confined to the plea of reduction of sentence, contending that:

(i) the deceased had requested the appellant to assist in abortion;

Page No.# 12/13

(ii) the appellant, aged more than 70 years, had no intention to cause her death; and

(iii) the sentence of seven years is excessive considering mitigating circumstances.

34. As regards the plea for reduction of sentence, it must be noted that the appellant engaged in a dangerous and grossly illegal abortion attempt, causing the death of a woman at an advanced stage of pregnancy.

35. The deceased was eight months pregnant. The appellant knowingly undertook an invasive procedure involving the use of a fishing hook, and continued despite hearing her cries of pain and her explicit plea to stop.

36. The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act prescribes strict conditions and requires competent medical practitioners. The appellant's actions exhibit reckless disregard for life and human dignity.

37. The age of the appellant, though a relevant factor, cannot dilute the gravity of the offence, especially when the conduct borders on barbarity. The plea of helping the deceased also cannot mitigate the fact that the act was performed in a manner manifestly unsafe and leading to her death.

38 Given the brutality and the fatal consequences of the actions of the appellant in the facts and circumstance of the case, the sentence of seven years' rigorous imprisonment cannot, in any manner, be termed excessive.

39. That apart, no mitigating circumstance of such nature has been shown that would justify interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. I cannot also be unmindful of the fact that sentencing must balance societal interest and individual circumstances.

Page No.# 13/13

40. For the foregoing reasons, this Court holds that the conviction of the appellant under Section 314 IPC and the sentence imposed thereof are just, proper, proportionate, and in accordance with law.

41. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

42. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.02.2014 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Morigaon in Sessions Case No.36/2012 is hereby affirmed.

43. The appellant shall undergo the remaining part of the sentence. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of

44. Return the TCR.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant

Pranab Digitally by Pranab signed

Kumar Kumar Date: