Female Foeticide As A Criminal Offence
๐น What is Female Foeticide?
Female foeticide is the illegal practice of aborting a fetus solely because it is female. This practice stems from deep-rooted gender bias and patriarchal values in Indian society.
๐น Legal Provisions Involved
1. Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994 (PCPNDT Act)
Prohibits sex selection before or after conception.
Bans the use of ultrasound or other techniques to determine the sex of the fetus.
Makes it illegal for medical practitioners to conduct or assist in sex selection.
2. Indian Penal Code (IPC)
Section 312โ316 IPC: Punishment for causing miscarriage or death of unborn child.
Section 302 IPC: Punishment for murder (used in extreme cases of sex-selective abortion).
Section 120B IPC: Criminal conspiracy.
๐น Key Elements of the Offence
Intent to determine or disclose sex of the fetus.
Act of abortion based on the sex (female) of the fetus.
Use of prohibited pre-natal diagnostic tools.
Violation by medical professionals and family members.
๐น Major Case Laws
1. CEHAT v. Union of India (2000) โ Supreme Court
Facts:
A PIL was filed by CEHAT and other NGOs alleging non-implementation of the PCPNDT Act and rise in female foeticide.
Judgment:
The SC directed strict enforcement of the PCPNDT Act.
Directed states to register ultrasound clinics and monitor illegal sex determination practices.
Emphasized the link between falling sex ratio and lack of enforcement.
Significance:
This case revived implementation of the PCPNDT Act.
2. Voluntary Health Association of Punjab v. Union of India (2013)
Facts:
Another PIL highlighting worsening sex ratio and inaction by authorities.
Judgment:
SC held that female foeticide is a national shame.
Directed the government to monitor advertisements on sex determination.
Ordered monthly review meetings at district level.
Significance:
Strengthened the enforcement mechanism and public accountability.
3. Sabu Mathew George v. Union of India (2015)
Facts:
Petitioner sought a ban on online advertisements about sex determination.
Judgment:
SC directed search engines like Google, Yahoo, and Bing to block advertisements and content promoting sex determination.
Upheld the constitutional values of right to life (Article 21) of the girl child.
Significance:
Bridged the digital loophole in the fight against female foeticide.
4. State of Maharashtra v. Dr. Sudamrao S. Lohar (2010)
Facts:
Dr. Lohar was caught conducting illegal sex determination tests and abortions.
Judgment:
Convicted under Sections 23 and 25 of the PCPNDT Act.
His registration was cancelled and he was fined.
Significance:
Demonstrated actual penal consequences for violating the law.
5. Mamta v. State of Rajasthan (2014)
Facts:
A woman was forced by in-laws to abort her female fetus.
Judgment:
In-laws were held liable under Sections 312 IPC and 120B IPC.
The court emphasized that coercion in abortion amounts to criminal conspiracy.
Significance:
Recognized family involvement as criminal in female foeticide cases.
6. State of Haryana v. Dr. Anil Sabharwal (2011)
Facts:
Doctor conducted illegal sex determination and abortion procedures.
Judgment:
Conviction under the PCPNDT Act upheld.
License to practice medicine revoked.
Significance:
Reinforced the deterrent aspect of the law for medical professionals.
๐น Summary
| Case Name | Key Contribution |
|---|---|
| CEHAT v. UOI | Supreme Court enforced strict implementation of PCPNDT |
| Voluntary Health Assn. v. UOI | Declared female foeticide a national shame |
| Sabu Mathew George v. UOI | Curbed online promotion of sex determination |
| State v. Dr. Lohar | Punished unlawful sex-selective abortions |
| Mamta v. Rajasthan | Recognized coercion in abortion as criminal |
| State v. Dr. Sabharwal | Set precedent for license cancellation |
2. Theft in Dwelling House โ IPC Explanation with Case Law
๐น Relevant Law: Section 380 IPC
Section 380 โ Theft in dwelling house, etc.
โWhoever commits theft in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling, or for the custody of property, shall be punished with imprisonment up to 7 years and fine.โ
๐น Ingredients of the Offence
Theft must be committed.
It must take place in a dwelling house, or place where property is kept.
The property must be moved dishonestly.
Punishment is more severe than general theft under Section 379 IPC.
๐น Major Case Laws on Section 380 IPC
1. Mansa Ram v. State of Haryana (2004)
Facts:
Accused entered a house and stole gold ornaments.
Judgment:
Conviction under Section 380 IPC upheld.
The court stated that theft within a dwelling house is aggravated due to breach of personal security and sanctity of home.
Significance:
Highlighted the intrusiveness of the offence.
2. Dharam Pal v. State of UP (1980)
Facts:
The accused was a servant in the house and stole money.
Judgment:
Held guilty under Section 380, despite being a domestic help.
Breach of trust aggravated the nature of theft.
Significance:
Even lawful entry doesn't excuse dishonest intention.
3. Devendra Kumar v. State of Rajasthan (2011)
Facts:
Accused stole items from his landlordโs house.
Judgment:
The court upheld conviction under Section 380, stating residence within the premises does not negate the offence.
Significance:
Confirmed that tenants or guests can be held liable under Section 380.
4. Balu v. State of Maharashtra (2006)
Facts:
Theft committed in a house at night while inmates were sleeping.
Judgment:
Section 380 read with Section 457 IPC (house-breaking).
Enhanced punishment due to night-time house trespass.
Significance:
Introduced the element of compounded gravity when combined with other sections.
5. Suraj v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2014)
Facts:
Accused entered neighbor's house and stole money.
Judgment:
Conviction under Section 380 affirmed.
Court stressed the importance of protecting privacy of the home.
Significance:
Recognized psychological trauma of theft in private spaces.
๐น Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|
| Mansa Ram v. State | House theft is an aggravated form of theft |
| Dharam Pal v. State | Domestic help can be held liable |
| Devendra Kumar v. State | Tenants and residents can be offenders |
| Balu v. State | Theft + house-breaking increases punishment |
| Suraj v. State | Emphasized emotional harm to victims |
๐น Conclusion
Female Foeticide is a grave social and criminal offence, covered under multiple laws including the PCPNDT Act and IPC. Courts have interpreted it as a violation of the right to life and dignity of the unborn girl child.
Theft in a dwelling house is a serious offence under Section 380 IPC with higher punishment due to the sanctity of the home being violated. Courts have adopted strict interpretations when theft occurs within private spaces.
RELATED Blog
0 comments