Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Vibhu Bakru, J. allowed the termination of pregnancy of a minor whose fetus had already undergone a gestation period of 22 weeks.

In the present order, it was noted that the petitioner had approached the High Court for direction to respondents in regard of termination of her pregnancy even after being aware of the high risks involved with the same. The Court on interaction with the 16-year old rape victim noted that she insisted on the termination of pregnancy and seemed to be in considerable distress.

Further, the Court noted the observation of Dr Sanjay Agrawal, Director Professor of Psychiatry, who was of the view that the unwanted pregnancy was causing a considerable amount of distress to Ms X. Medical Board had submitted the report which indicated that abortions of about 22 weeks carry a higher risk of mortality and morbidity. The stated risk was explained to the petitioner as well as her father, both of whom were adamant that the pregnancy should be terminated.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner while citing various decisions of Supreme Court including Chanchala Kumari v. Union of India, WP(C) No. 871 of 2017 and Venkatalakshmi v. State of Karnataka, Civil Appeal No. 1538 of 2017, noted that the Court on examining the medical reports had permitted the termination even after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

Thus, the High Court keeping in consideration the above-stated allowed the petition and directed for the termination of pregnancy of the minor child. [X v. State (NCT of Delhi),2018 SCC OnLine Del 12891, Order dated 01-12-2018]

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Every attempt should be made by all the courts not to disclose the identity of the rape victim in terms of Section 228-A IPC

Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of Abhay Manohar Sapre and Uday Umesh Lalit JJ. while addressing the petition of a convict under Sections 376 and Section 342 IPC and affirming the sentence granted to him by the High Court, took notice of a very essential point of concern, that the name of the ‘rape’ victim has been stated in both the judgments of the Trial Court as well as that of the High Court.

The present order dealt with, the appeal of a rape convict under Sections 376 and 342 IPC with a sentence of 7 and 1 year respectively. The Supreme Court found no merits in intervening with the High Court’s conviction and sentence, therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

The point to be addressed was that of victim’s name being mentioned in the judgments of the Trial Court and High Court, which was inconsistent with Section 228-A of IPC. The Supreme Court while stating that the courts should make every attempt in not disclosing the identity of the victim, relied on the case State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh (2004) 1 SCC 421.

Therefore, while dismissing the present appeal, the bench focussed on the point regarding the mentioning of rape victim’s name and further directed the Registry of the High Court to place the record of the appeal in the High Court for making appropriate changes in the record and passing of appropriate directions so that the trial courts comply and understand the essence of Section 228-A IPC. [Lalit Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 680, order dated 05-07-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Ranjit More and Prakash D. Naik, JJ. heard a petition requesting termination of pregnancy of the petitioner’s daughter who was a victim of rape and was running into 27 weeks of pregnancy on the grounds that continuation of pregnancy would cause grave injury to the victim.

Relying on the medical report submitted by the Assistant Public Prosecutor which stated that “the petitioner’s daughter should be directed to continue pregnancy with medical and psychological support” and also on Section 3 of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the Court refused to interfere and dismissed the petition.

Section 3 of the MTP Act, 1971 states that a pregnancy may be terminated where the length of a pregnancy exceeds 12 weeks (before which a medical practitioner is permitted to terminate a pregnancy) but not 20 weeks, and at least two registered medical practitioners must be of the opinion, formed in good faith, that the continuation of the pregnancy would gravely injure the woman’s physical or emotional health. The Explanation provides that if the pregnancy has been caused by rape, the anguish caused by such a pregnancy would constitute grave injury to mental health of the woman. [Danbahadur Rajkaram Yadav v. State of Maharashtra, 2017 SCC OnLine Bom 8900, order dated 13.10.2017]

 

 

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In the case where a 35-year-old woman victim of sexual assault had sought for termination of pregnancy on the ground that she is HIV positive, the Court, after considering the report of the AIIMs medical Board which stated that the procedure involved in termination of the pregnancy is risky to the life of the petitioner and the fetus in the womb, held that though there cannot be termination of pregnancy but the State of Bihar will provide all the medical facilities to the petitioner as per the treatment graph given by the doctors who are going to examine the petitioner at AIIMS through the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences at Patna.

The Medical Board had also suggested that she is advised to continue HAART therapy and routine antenatal care, to reduce the risk of HIV transmission to the fetus/baby to the minimum. The Court hence, directed the Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences to work in coordination with AIIMS, New Delhi so that the health condition of the petitioner is not further jeopardized.

The Bench of Dipak Misra and A.M. Khanwilkar, JJ also directed the State of Bihar to pay Rs. 3,00,000 to the petitioner as compensation under the scheme of Section 357-A CrPC within 4 weeks as she has been a victim of rape. [Indu Devi v. State of Bihar, 2017 SCC OnLine SC 560, order dated 09.05.2017]