HASI MOHAN BARMAN AND ANR. versus STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 11 S.C.R. 1135 · Decided: 13-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

HASI MOHAN BARMAN Ai""JD ANR. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 13, 2007 
t 
[G.P. MATHUR AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-s. 313 rlw. s. 34-Non-compoundable offence 
of causing miscarriage of woman without her consent-Principal 
accused was paramour of the victim-Courts below convicted him and c 
a co-accused-Meanwhile, victim married principal accitsed-She filed 
affidavit before Supreme Court stating that she had entered into a 
compromise and wanted criminal case against both accused to be 
withdrawn-Effect of the subsequent developments of marriage and 
compromise-Held: Affidavit filed by victim cannot be utilized for D 
acquitting the accused-Conviction maintained, but in interest of 
justice, sentence reduced to period already undergone~Code of 
Criminal Procedure, 197 3-s. 3 20. 
PW-1 got pregnant through Appellant No.1, her paramour, who E 
wanted PW-1 to abort the child. As PW-1 declined to do so, Appellant 
No.1 with the help of Appellant No.2 allegedly caused miscarriage 
of the pregnancy without the consent of PW-1. Trial Court convicted 
both Appellants unders.313 r.w. s.34 IPC. High Court maintained 
the conviction. 
F 
During pendency of the case, PW-1 married Appellant No.1. 
She filed an affidavit before this Court stating that she had entered 
into a compromise and wanted the criminal case pending against 
Appellant No.1 (now her husband) and Appellant No.2 to be 
withdrawn. 
G 
The question which arose for consideration is whether in view 
of the said subsequent developments of marriage and compromise, 
conviction of the Appellants is liable to be set aside. 
1135 
H 
1136 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 11 S.C.R. 
A 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. A perusal of Section 320, CrPC shows that the 
offence under Section 313 IPC is not compoundable. Therefore, the 
consent given by the wife PW-1 or the affidavit filed by her cannot 
B be utilized for the purpose ofrecording a fmding of acquittal in favour 
of the accused appellants. [Para 8) [1139-A, BJ 
2. In the present case, the complainant PWl and the principal 
accused (Appellant No.1) having already married it will be in the 
interest of justice if tlte sentence is reduced to the period already 
C undergone. The conviction of the appellants underSection313 IPC 
is maintained but the sentence is reduced to the period already 
undergone which appears to be about ten months. The fine imposed 
upon the appellants is also set aside. [Para 12] [1140-B] 
Ram Pujan and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [1973] 2 SCC 
D 456; Surendra Nath Mohanty and Anr. v. State of Orissa, [1999] 5 SCC 
238; Bankat and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, [2005] 1 · SCC 343, 
Badrilalv. State ofA1.P., [2005) 7 SCC 55 andJetha Ram and Ors. v. 
State of Rajasthan, [2006) 9 SCC 255, relied on. 
E 
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 
1534of2007. 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 2.1.2007 of the High Court 
ofGauhati at Guwahati in Criminal Appeal No. 372 of2001. 
F 
P.K. Goswami, K.T.S. Tulsi (A.C.), Rajiv Mehta, A. Henry, B. 
G 
Aggrawal, Gaurave Bhargava and Evneet Uppal for the Appellants. 
Jai Prakash Pandey and Avijit Roy (for Corporate Law Group) for 
the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G.P. MATHUR, J. 1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal, by special leave, has been preferred against the 
judgment and order dated 2.1.2007 of Gauhati High Court by which the 
H appeal preferred by the appellants was disposed of with the modification 
HASIMOHANBARMANv. STATE[G.P.MATHUR,J.] 
1137 
that the sentence of five years R.I. and fine ofRs.7,000/- imposed upon A 
each of the appellants under Section 313 read with Section 34 IPC by 
the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kokrajhar, was reduced to three 
years R.I. and fine of Rs.5,000/-. 
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the appellant Hasi B 
Mohan Barman was having love affair with the first informant PW-1 
Haleswari Barman, which subsequently developed into physical 
relationship and as a result thereof PW-1 became pregnant. The villagers 
put pressure upon Hasi Mohan Barman to marry PW-I which he declined. 
He asked PW-1 to abort the child which she refused to do. Thereafter, 
in the night of the incident Hasi Mohan Barman took PW-I Haleswari C 
Barman to the pharmacy of co-accused Abinash Biswas, who 
administered certain injection whereupon PW-1 became unconscious and 
the child was aborted. She was administered Saline and the appellant
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.