Death of "quick unborn child" : Essential ingredient of "quick unborn child" missing as the fetus was only six weeks old

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Acquittal in IPC Sections 294 and 316 Charges Against Surendra Kumar Jangde. Lack of Evidence and Missing Essential Ingredients Lead to Acquittal; Convictions Under Sections 506 (Part II) and 323 Remain Intact

In a recent judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court upheld the acquittal of Surendra Kumar Jangde, who was previously charged under Sections 294 and 316 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case revolved around allegations by Jangde's wife, who claimed that he assaulted her, leading to an abortion while she was two months pregnant. The court found insufficient evidence to support the charges that the accused used obscene language or caused the death of a "quick unborn child" through culpable homicide.

The court, presided over by Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari, reviewed the evidence presented, including medical examinations and witness testimonies. It was determined that the fetus was only six weeks old, which is below the threshold for being considered a "quick unborn child." Moreover, there was no evidence indicating the accused had the intent or knowledge that his actions could result in the death of either his wife or the unborn child. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court’s decision to acquit Jangde under Section 316.

Similarly, under Section 294, which pertains to the use of obscene words or acts in public, the court found no specific words were recited or recorded in the initial report or court evidence by the complainant, leading to the affirmation of the acquittal in this regard.

However, the convictions under Sections 506 (Part II) and 323 of the IPC were upheld. Jangde was found guilty of criminal intimidation and causing hurt, and the sentences for these offences were ordered to run concurrently. The court imposed a fine and sentenced him to the period he had already served, with additional imprisonment in case of default in fine payment.

The state's appeal, which argued that there was ample evidence for the charges under Sections 294 and 316, was dismissed. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the necessary elements required for conviction under these sections.

Bottom Line:

Acquittal upheld for charges under Sections 294 and 316 IPC due to lack of evidence proving essential ingredients of offences.

Statutory provision(s): 294, 316, 506 (Part II), 323 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)

State of Chhattisgarh v. Surendra Kumar Jangde, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2765896