- (1.) BY way of this petition, the State seeks leave to appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.06.2012 as passed in Sessions Case No. 23/2011 (31/2011) whereby the Additional Sessions Judge (Women Atrocities and Dowry cases), Sriganganagar has recorded an order of acquittal of the respondent-accused, who was charged of the offences under Sections 315, 317, and 302 IPC. The background in which the respondent was accused of, and was tried for, the offences aforesaid could be noticed in the following: On 19.01.2011, at about 08:00 p.m., the Sub-Inspector, Police Station Jawaharnagar, Sriganganagar made a written report to the effect that at about 05:30 p.m., he received an information from the city control room about one newly-born child lying abandoned near the office of the electricity corporation at Karni Marg; and that upon reaching the spot, he found a large crowd having gathered around a female child who had been dropped in the bushes by its mother after delivery. The informant further alleged that he had admitted the child to the Government Hospital for treatment. Upon this report, FIR No. 41/2011 came to be registered. The newly-born died in the hospital whereupon, the investigating officer prepared the inquest report and obtained the necessary medical reports. During the course of investigation, the respondent-accused was arrested on the allegation that she had been the mother who gave birth to the said child and left it at the unsafe place to die.
(2.) PURSUANT to the charge-sheet as filed after investigation, the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions; and the respondent-accused was charged of the offences under Sections 315, 317, and 302 IPC. The prosecution case rested essentially on two-fold aspects: one, the alleged extra-judicial confession, said to have been made by the accused to PW-5 Jannat Bano; and second, the alleged medical evidence suggesting that there was likelihood of the accused having delivered a child about 7 days before the date of her medical examination. The learned Trial Court rejected the suggestion about extra- judicial confession after finding that the same was not corroborated, and was rather contradicted, by the other relevant evidence on record. The learned Trial Court took into consideration the statement of PW-5 Jannat Bano to the effect that the wife of Maulvi was holding a newly-born gild child, alleged to have been found in the bushes and, thereafter, she (PW-5) and her husband took the child to hospital in ambulance. The witness also suggested that later on, she came to know that the child was delivered by a lady residing in the neighbourhood, whose husband was a sculptor. She further alleged that accused earlier denied her relation with the child but came to her house the day next and requested her not to tell anybody that the child was hers. The witness stated in the cross-examination that she was informed by Sanjida Khatun, the wife of Maulvi, that the child was of the accused. However, the learned Trial Court found that PW-4 Sanjida Khatun did not corroborate the material part of the testimony of Jannant Bano; and only suggested that she found a child lying in the bushes whereupon she informed one lady and thereafter, a crowd gathered. PW-4 Sanjida Khatun was declared hostile by the prosecution and she denied the alleged statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The learned Trial Court also found that PW-6 Gani Khan, the husband of PW-5 Jannat Bano, was also not corroborating the relevant part of testimony of PW-5 Jannat Bano and was not supporting the prosecution case. The learned Trial Court referred to the principles for dealing with extra-judicial confession and found the evidence as suggested in the present case not conclusively establishing the story about the accused making the alleged extra-judicial confession before PW-5 Jannat Bano. The learned Trial Court, inter alia, observed as under:- ...[vernaculam text ommited]......
(3.) AS regards the facts suggested on the basis of the medical examination of the accused, the learned Trial Court found that the same was not decisive to bring home the charge against the accused particularly when the prosecution failed to place on record any report on the matching of blood sample or DNA of the alleged fetus/child with that of the accused. The Trial Court further observed that for no such matching test/s having been carried out, and no such report having been placed on record, it was difficult to conclude that the alleged fetus/child was the one delivered only by the accused. In regard to the medical evidence and rather want of it, the learned Trial Court observed and held as under:- ...[vernaculam text ommited]......;