Overview
Rajesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh is an important decision concerning the scope and essential ingredients of Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, which deals with death caused by an act done with the intention of causing miscarriage. The case arose from the conviction of Rajesh Kumar and three other accused by the Special Court. The High Court examined whether the prosecution had proved that a miscarriage had actually occurred and that the act attributed to Rajesh Kumar had caused the woman’s death. The Court also considered whether the other accused could remain liable for abetment when the principal offence itself had not been established. Ultimately, all four appeals were allowed.
Facts
The prosecution case concerned Shakun Bai, who was pregnant. According to the prosecution, she had eloped with Jasmit Singh and was subsequently taken to another place. After several months, she was allegedly found at a hut in Nagpur. Certain unidentified persons brought her and her children back towards Rajnandgaon. Near Devri Dhaba, they allegedly gave ₹1,500 to her father, Tularam (PW-3) and instructed him to get Shakun Bai’s pregnancy terminated. He was allegedly threatened with death if he disclosed the incident.
Thereafter, the prosecution alleged that Rajesh Kumar (A-1) treated Shakun Bai. He allegedly asked the other accused to leave the room and administered an injection to her. She subsequently became unconscious and blood allegedly started coming from her mouth. Her condition deteriorated the following day. Rajesh Kumar allegedly advised her father to take her to a higher medical centre. While she was being taken towards Rajnandgaon, she died on the way.
A post-mortem was conducted by a team of three doctors. The important finding was that a dead foetus of 24 weeks was still present inside Shakun Bai’s womb. There were no external injuries. The viscera was preserved because the exact cause of death could not be determined. The FSL report found an alkaloid in certain viscera samples, but no poisonous chemical was found in the liquid sample.
The prosecution examined 26 witnesses and produced 42 documents. The accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication. They did not examine defence witnesses but produced four defence documents. The trial court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, but convicted Rajesh Kumar under Section 314 IPC and the other accused under Section 314 read with Section 109 IPC, sentencing each to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and fine.
Issue
The principal question was whether the trial court was justified in convicting Rajesh Kumar under Section 314 IPC for causing miscarriage which allegedly resulted in Shakun Bai’s death.
The connected issue was whether the conviction of the remaining accused for abetment under Section 314 read with Section 109 IPC could survive if the substantive offence under Section 314 was not proved.
Held
The High Court allowed all four criminal appeals and set aside the convictions.
The Court first examined Sections 312 and 314 IPC. It explained that Section 314 requires proof of specific ingredients. The prosecution must establish that the woman was pregnant, that the accused performed an act intended to cause miscarriage, that the act was done with the required intention, that the act caused the woman’s death, and that the act was done without the woman’s consent.
The Court found a fundamental difficulty in the prosecution’s case: the foetus had not been expelled from the womb. The post-mortem clearly showed the 24-week foetus still inside the deceased’s womb. The Court explained that “miscarriage” in the context of Section 312 refers to the expulsion of the embryo or foetus from the mother’s womb before completion of the normal period of gestation. Therefore, the prosecution had failed to establish the occurrence of the very act constituting miscarriage.
The Court also noted that the medical evidence did not satisfactorily establish that Rajesh Kumar’s alleged act caused Shakun Bai’s death. The cause of death itself had remained uncertain, and the FSL material did not conclusively establish poisoning.
The Court observed that the facts might, depending upon the evidence, have raised a question of an attempt to cause miscarriage under Section 312 read with Section 511 IPC. However, the accused could not simply be convicted for a different offence when the ingredients of the offence for which they were convicted had not been established.
Once the conviction of Rajesh Kumar under Section 314 failed, the conviction of the other accused under Section 314 read with Section 109 IPC also could not survive. The Court therefore set aside their convictions as well.
Conclusion
The judgment emphasises that criminal liability under Section 314 IPC cannot be imposed merely because there is an allegation that an accused attempted to terminate a pregnancy. The prosecution must prove each statutory ingredient beyond reasonable doubt, including the occurrence of miscarriage and the causal connection between the accused’s act and the woman’s death.
The presence of the 24-week foetus inside Shakun Bai’s womb was therefore crucial to the Court’s conclusion. Since actual miscarriage had not been proved and the cause of death was also not conclusively connected to Rajesh Kumar’s act, the conviction under Section 314 could not stand. The consequential convictions for abetment also failed.
The decision is consequently significant for understanding the distinction between causing miscarriage under Section 312, causing death while attempting to cause miscarriage under Section 314, and an attempt to commit the offence under Section 511. It also reinforces the fundamental criminal-law principle that suspicion cannot substitute proof of the essential ingredients of an offence.