Illegal Abortions And Criminal Liability
Legal Framework in India
Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 (MTP Act) is the primary law regulating abortions.
Section 312 to 316 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) criminalizes abortion except when done under certain conditions.
Under Section 312 IPC: Causing miscarriage intentionally is a punishable offence unless done to save the life of the woman or to prevent grave injury to her physical or mental health.
Section 313 IPC: Causing miscarriage without the woman's consent is also punishable.
The MTP Act allows abortion under specific conditions such as risk to the mother’s life, rape, or fetal abnormalities, if done by a registered medical practitioner.
Illegal abortions outside the scope of the MTP Act or by unqualified persons are criminal offenses.
Elements of Illegal Abortion
Performing or attempting abortion without valid consent.
Performing abortion by a non-registered medical practitioner.
Abortion done beyond the permissible gestational limit.
Abortion performed without fulfilling the conditions under the MTP Act.
Key Case Laws on Illegal Abortions and Criminal Liability
1. Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration (2009) 9 SCC 1
Facts: A minor sought to terminate her pregnancy which the hospital refused.
Holding:
Supreme Court recognized the right to reproductive choice and bodily autonomy.
Ruled that forced continuation of pregnancy violates personal liberty.
Affirmed that abortion must comply with MTP Act provisions.
Significance: Balances right to life and reproductive rights.
2. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1
Facts: Case on right to privacy which impacts medical decisions including abortion.
Holding:
Right to privacy includes autonomy in reproductive choices.
Illegal abortion violates this fundamental right, thus must be regulated but not criminalized beyond MTP Act limits.
3. Dr. Mukhtiar Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1955 SC 191
Facts: Doctor charged for abortion without consent.
Holding:
Court held that abortion without valid consent is criminal offence under IPC.
Emphasized necessity of consent and medical justification.
4. Laxmi Mandal v. Deen Dayal Harinagar Hospital & Ors. (2015) 4 SCC 1
Facts: Negligence and refusal to provide timely abortion led to health complications.
Holding:
Court held that hospitals must comply with MTP Act.
Illegal or negligent abortions attract civil and criminal liability.
5. Poonam Verma v. Ashwin Patel AIR 1997 SC 1225
Facts: Doctor’s negligence during abortion led to victim’s death.
Holding:
Doctor held criminally liable under IPC for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Set precedent for criminal liability in illegal/unsafe abortions.
Summary
Illegal abortion outside the MTP Act is punishable under IPC Sections 312-316.
Valid consent and compliance with MTP guidelines are crucial.
Courts uphold right to privacy and reproductive autonomy but within legal limits.
Medical negligence during abortion can lead to criminal liability.
2. Theft in Dwelling House – Detailed Explanation with Case Law
Legal Framework in India
Theft is defined under Section 378 IPC: dishonestly taking property without consent.
Section 379 IPC prescribes punishment for theft.
Section 380 IPC specifically deals with theft in dwelling houses, etc.
Theft committed in any building, tent or vessel used as a human dwelling or for custody of property.
Punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and fine.
Key Elements of Theft in Dwelling House (Section 380 IPC)
Dishonest taking of property.
The property must be in a dwelling house or a place used for human habitation or safekeeping.
Without the consent of the owner or lawful possessor.
The intent to deprive the owner permanently of the property.
Case Laws on Theft in Dwelling House
1. K. S. Ratnam v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1975 SC 2270
Facts: Accused broke into a house and stole valuables.
Holding:
Supreme Court held that theft inside a dwelling house attracts Section 380.
Distinguished from general theft, emphasizing greater severity and stricter punishment.
2. State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram AIR 2006 SC 144
Facts: Theft of jewelry from a house.
Holding:
Court held that the offence must be proved with clear evidence of entry and taking property.
Mere suspicion or missing property not enough.
Conviction under Section 380 requires proof of dishonest taking inside dwelling.
3. Suresh Chandra v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1964 SC 1935
Facts: Accused charged for stealing from a house.
Holding:
Entry must be unauthorized.
Theft must occur inside the building used as a dwelling.
Differentiated from theft from premises or open land.
4. R. v. Johnson (1890) 24 QBD 108
Facts: Accused convicted for stealing from a dwelling.
Holding:
English case often cited for interpreting Section 380 IPC.
Held that the offence is aggravated due to violation of privacy and sanctity of home.
5. B. K. Sharma v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1563
Facts: Theft from a house with proof of unlawful entry.
Holding:
Court confirmed that unlawful entry plus dishonest taking constitutes offence under Section 380.
Highlighted importance of possession and control over the property.
Summary
Theft in a dwelling house is an aggravated form of theft with harsher punishment.
Requires proof of unlawful entry and dishonest taking.
Emphasizes protection of privacy and sanctity of home.
Courts require strict evidence for conviction.
RELATED Blog
0 comments