SURENDRA CHAUHAN versus STATE OF M.P

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 515 · Decided: 27-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

SURENDRA CHAUHAN 
v. 
STATE OF M.P: 
MARCH 27, 2000 
[D.P. WADHWA AND MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860 : 
S.314134-Common intention-Death caused while causing miscarriage 
of victim with child-Accused having illicit relations with victim-Three months 
pregnancy-Accused taking victim to clinic of an Electro Homoeopathy prac-
titioner not competent to terminate pregnancy with intent to cause miscarriage 
of victim-Victim died in the clinic while being aborted-Confession made by 
accused to mother of victim-Held, accused was rightly convicted uls. 3141 
34-Extra-judicial confe5·sion of accused made to mother of victim being quite 
natural, conviction based thereon upheld-Sentence reduced to one and ha(f 
years R.1.-Fine enhanced-Evidence Act, 1872-S.24_.;_Extra-judicial confes-
sion-Indian Medical Counsel Act, 1958-S.2-Medical Termination of Preg-
nancy Act, I971-S.3. 
Constitution of India : 
Article 136-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court-Explained. 
The appellant and another person, namely 'S' an Electro Homoeopa-
thy practitioner, were prosecuted under s.314 IPC. The prosecution case, 
inter alia, was that the appellant had illicit relations with the victim. She 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
. was carrying pregnancy of three months. The appellant took her to 'S' for 
F 
terminating the pregnancy. The victim died in the clinic of 'S' while she was 
being aborted. The appellant was said to have confessed to the mother of 
the victim. The trial court convicted 'S' under s.314 IPC and the appellant 
under s.314/34 IPC. Both were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprison-
ment for seven years and a fine of Rs. 10,000 each. The appeals filed by 
G 
them were dismissed by the High Court. They then filed petitions under 
Article 136 of the Constitution. Only the appellant was granted the leave. 
It was contended for the appellant that the extra-judicial confession 
could not be solely made the basis for conviction; and that the appellant did 
not share any common intention with 'S' to cause the death of the victim. 
H 
515 
516 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2000] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HELD : 1.1. There is no reason not to take into consideration the 
extra judicial confession of the appellant ma~e to mother of the deceased 
to base his conviction. It was quite natural in the circumstances. It was the 
appellant who took the deceased to the clinic of 'S' who was not a qualified 
doctor to cause abortion. [520-E-F] 
1.2. There have been concurrent findings that the appellant was 
having illicit relations with the deceased with the result that she became 
pregnant. He accompanied her to the clinic of 'S' for her abortion. It has 
also come on record that 'S' was not a medical practitioner. He did not 
possess any· recognised medical qualification as defined in clause (h) of 
Section 2 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. His name has not been 
entered in a State Medical Register; nor has he any experience or training 
in gynaecology and obstetrics. (519-D-F] 
2. It is not possible to believe the defence version that the victim just 
died lying on the table in the clinic of 'S'. She was a normal girl. No 
explanation is forthcoming either from 'S' or the appellant as to in what 
circumstances the deceased died. It was something within their knowl-
edge. In the circumstances of the case, the defence set up either by 'S' or 
the appellant could not be true and had to be rejected. [520-G; 522-C] 
3.1. To apply Section 34 IPC apart from the fact that there should be 
two or more accused, two factors must be established : (i) common inten-
tion and (ii) participation of the accused in the commission of the offence. 
However, in every case, it is not possible to have direct evidence of a 
common intention. It has to be inferred from the facts and circumstances 
of each case. From the record it is apparent, and there is concurrent 
finding, that 'S' and the appellant had intent to cause miscarriage of the 
victim who was pregnant, and death was caused by 'S' while conducting 
abortfon. [522-H; 523-A-C] 
G 
Ramaswami Ayhangar & Ors. v. State qf Tamil Nadu, [1976) 3 SCC 779 
and Rajesh Govind Jagesha v. State qf Maharashtra, [1999] 8 SCC 428, 
relied on. 
3.2. After coming into force of the Medical Termination of Preg-
nancy Act, 1971, provisions of IPC relating to miscarriage became subser-
H 
vient to that Act because of non-obstante clause in Section 3. In the present 
S. CHAUHAN v. STATE [D.P. WADHWA, J.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.