V. Manickam Pillai vs State and Another

K.N. Mudaliyar, J.—This is an appeal filed by Manickam Pillai, P.W. I. (Complainant) against the order of the Court of Session, West

Thanjavur Division, Thanjavur, acquitting Kaliammal alias Kalimuthu of an offence u/s 314 of the Indian Penal Code.

The accusation against her is that on 24th November, 1969 at about 7 P. M. at Orathanad she administered some substance with intent to

cause miscarriage of one Padmavathi in the house of the 2nd accused Solai Ammal, which caused the death of the said Padmavathi, The 2nd

accused was acquitted by the trial Judge.

Manickam Pillai (P. W. 1) and his wife Rathinathammal (P. W. 5), his son Thanga-velu (P. W. 4), his daughter-in-law Padmavathi (deceased)

and his pangalis are living in the same house at Orathanad. Padmavathi was the wife of P. W. 4. They have got two daughters. Padmavathi was

pregnant (four months) in November 1969, On 24th November 1969 at about 7. 30 p. m. Rathinathammal, P. W. 5 told her husband P. W, 1 that

Padmavathi was complaining of acute stomach pain and asked him to enquire. Accordingly, P.W. 1 enquired the said Padmavathi. She told him

that the 1st accused gave some medicine to her in the house of the 2nd accused miscarriage, that she agreed to pay Rs. 40/- to cause for the said

purpose and paid Rs. 15/- as advance. Thereupon P. W. 4 fetched the 1st accused and she admitted that she gave medicine to Padmavathi to

cause miscarriage. To cure the stomach pain the 1st accused prescribed some medicine in writing. P. W. 4 went to Santha Pharmacy at Orathanad

and brought the medicine. When the 1st accused told P. W. 1 that that the said medicine was for inducing sleep, he did not give that medicine to

Padmavathi. Then the 1st accused stated that Padmavathi should be taken to the hospital at Thanjavur in a taxi. Accordingly, Padmavathi, P. Ws.

1, 4 to 6 and the 1st accused left Orathanad in a taxi for Thanjavur and reached the R. M. Hospital at Thanjavur at about 10-30 p. m. on 24th

November, 1969. Padmavathi was admitted into the hospital at about 11-15 p. m. P. W. 3, Dr. Jaganamohini, was on duty in the Labour ward at

the time of her admission. P. W. 3 enquired the patient Padmavathi as also the 1st accused. Padmavathi told her that the 1st accused induced

abortion. The 1st accused-Respondent admitted it and she even demonstrated before P. W. 3 as to how she did it. Since Padmavathi was

dangerously ill P. W. 3 put her in the dangerously ill list. On 25th November, 19699 at about 1-30 a. m, when P. W, 2, the Civil Assistant

Surgeon and Head of the Department of obstetrics and gynaecology came forward rounds, P.W. 3 informed her about the condition of

Padmavathi. P.W. 2 (Dr. Mrs. Philips) enquired Padmavathi and also her relatives as to who induced the abortion. Ex. P. 3 (series) is the case

sheet relating to the said Padmavathi. Ex. P. 4 is the complaint dated 25th November, 1969 sent by P. W. 2 against the 1st accused, who is

working as Female Woman Orderly in the Leprosy Centre at Orathanad, to the District Medical Officer, Thanjavur at Nagapattinam. Padmavathi

died in the hospital on 26th November, 1969 at 12-55 p. m.

Ex. P. 2 is the death certificate. P.W. 1 preferred a complaint, Ex. P. 1 to the Orathanad Police on 27th November 1969. Since the said

complaint disclosed a non-cognizable offence, the police did not take action. Thereupon P.W. 1 preferred a complaint against the accused before

the Sub-Magistrate, Pattukottai. Undoubtedly, all these facts have been proved by the prosecution.

The trial Judge found the 1st accused guilty of the offence u/s 314 I. P. C. The Appellate Court acquitted the accused. Hence P.W. 1 has filed

this appeal before this Court.

The only argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Respondent is that on the authority of Modi''s Medical Jurisprudence and

Toxicology, the substance administered by the 1st accused led to the death of Padmavathi and that the uterus and its appendages should have been

preserved for chemical analysis and in this case such a procedure has not been followed. The learned Counsel relied on the following passage (p.

366 of Modi''s Medical Jurisprudence):

In all cases of criminal abortion the uterus and its appendages with any foreign matter or fluid found in the genital canal, as well as the stomach, etc.

should always be preserved for chemical analysis if there is the least suspicion of a drug having been used locally or internally.

But in this case there is absolutely no question of any suspicion at all. P.W. 3 stated that Padmavathi was admitted for induced abortion. The 1st

accused who induced the abortion accompanied Padmavathi to the Hospital P.W. 3 identified the 1st accused in Court as the person who

accompanied the patient Padmavathi. P.W. 3 enquired both the patient and the 1st accused. The first accused said this:

She even demonstrated it. P.W. 3 verified from the patient. Padmavathi told P.W. 3 that a metal catheter was introduced into her womb and the

medicine was injected. Padmavathi was complaining acute pain in the lower abdomen. P.W. 3 examined the uterus. The uterus was enlarged to 16

weeks period and the urine was uniformly bloodstained. P.W. 3 put her in the dangerously ill list. At the time of her admission her condition was

bad. P.W. 3 informed Padmavathi''s husband about her condition in writing and got his signature in the case sheet, Ex. P. 3. Padmavathi said that

the 1st accused induced the abortion. The 1st accused admitted it and demonstrated as to how she did it. There has been no challenge in the

cross-examination of P.W. 3. She stated that the writing ""Glyzerine and uniformly bloodstained urine"" in the column ""Precarious Health"" in Ex. P. 3

is in her hand-writing.

The evidence of P.W. 3 is corroborated by the testimony of P.W. 2, Dr. Phillips. She stated that Ex. P. 3 is the case sheet from 24th to 26th

November 1969 and that it contains the nurse''s chart regarding the patient. She examined the patient and found her pulse rapid. Padmavathi

complained of severe abdomen pain. When she enquired the patient as to what happened, she told her that she was net anxious to hare pregnancy

and hence she went to the 1st accused on 24th November 1969 at about 7 P.M. and a pink coloured fluid was injected into the vagina by the 1st

accused and she went home and had severe abdominal pain. According to the contents of Ex. P. 3 there is an entry that on 25th November 1969

the patient has developed jaundice. The development of jaundice is the result of induced abortion and the urine that was drawn was mixed with

blood. According to P.W. 2, first the patient gets into the state of shock in the case of induced abortion, secondly there will be severe infection of

clostridial group of organisms in the uterus and in the abdomen; then the infection spreads to other parts; thirdly there will be injuries to internal

organs. In her opinion, death must be due to shock and severe infection due to the clostridial infection producing jaundice, as a result of induced

abortion. Her evidence regarding the cause of the death of Padmavathi has not even been questioned in the cross-examination of P.W. 2. I have

no hesitation in accepting the testimony of P. Ws. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.

I set aside the order of acquittal and convict the 1st accused-Respondent Kaliammal for an offence u/s 314, I. P. C.

The only question that remains for determination is that of sentence. It is argued that the 1st accused is a Government servant and that in the

event of a sentence of imprisonment she is likely to lose her job. It is pleaded that an order u/s 4(1) of the Probation of Offenders Act would meet

the ends of justice.

Having regard to the circumstances of this case including the nature of the offence and the antecedents and character of the accused, I consider

it expedient to release her on probation of good conduct for three years and direct that she be released on entering into a bond in a sum of Rs.

1000/- with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the Sub-Magistrate, Pattukottai and to appear and receive sentence when called

upon during the period of three years as the court may direct and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. This Court is of

further opinion that in the interests of the offender and the public, it is expedient to pass a supervision order directing that the accused herein shall

remain under the supervision of a Probation officer for three years. The name of the Probation Officer and the conditions that may be deemed

necessary for the due supervision of the accused by the Probation Officer will be passed by the Sub-Magistrate, Pattukottai in accordance with the

terms of S. 4(3) of the Probation of Offenders Act. This Court further directs the accused to enter into a bond with the sureties to observe the

conditions specified herein.

(1) The accused shall not administer any drug or indulge in any activity, in regard to performance of criminal abortions on women and (2) the

accused shall not posses any material or instrument for assisting in effecting any criminal abortions.