Consent to Unsafe Abortion Doesn’t Absolve Liability – Barbaric Act by Unqualified Appellant Causing Death of 8-Month Pregnant Woman Merits No Leniency: Gauhati High Court Affirms Conviction Under Section 314 IPC

“A Fishing Hook Was Used to Pull Out the Unborn Child – Appellant Showed Reckless Disregard for Life”, Gauhati High Court upheld the conviction and seven-year rigorous imprisonment imposed on an elderly woman for causing the death of an eight-month pregnant woman during a crude, invasive, and illegal abortion procedure. High Court affirmed that the appellant's advanced age and the consent of the victim could not mitigate the inherent illegality and fatal recklessness of the act.

“Consent of the deceased for abortion does not exonerate the appellant because the act was performed: without medical qualification, in a crude and unhygienic manner, and in a manner imminently dangerous to life,” held Justice Kaushik Goswami, rejecting the appellant’s plea for sentence reduction on account of her old age and alleged lack of intent.

“Brutal, Unqualified, and Illegal Procedure – No Justification in Law or Morality”

The Court was hearing an appeal challenging a conviction under Section 314 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalizes causing the death of a woman by an act done with intent to cause miscarriage. The deceased, already a mother of five, had allegedly approached the appellant for help to terminate her pregnancy.

However, instead of referring her to a medical facility, the appellant, an unqualified individual, administered crude abortifacient substances and later attempted a forced abortion by inserting a fishing hook into the womb of the deceased. The result was massive hemorrhage and septicemia, leading to the woman’s death.

The Court observed:

“The appellant knowingly undertook an invasive procedure involving the use of a fishing hook, and continued despite hearing her cries of pain and her explicit plea to stop.”

“Even if the Woman Requested It, the Method Chosen Was Manifestly Unsafe – That Alone Makes the Act Criminal”

The appellant’s defence relied heavily on the deceased’s alleged request for abortion. But the Court clarified that consent alone cannot sanitize a patently dangerous and illegal act, particularly when carried out by someone with no medical training.

Referring to Section 314 IPC, the Court reaffirmed that:

“Section 314 IPC punishes voluntarily causing the death of a woman by an act done with intent to cause miscarriage, even if the miscarriage itself was done with the woman’s consent.”

The act, the Court ruled, fell squarely within the statutory parameters of Section 314, as the abortion was not only unauthorized and unskilled, but also grossly negligent and fatal.

“Evidence of Barbarity – Medical and Ocular Testimony Paint a Chilling Picture”

The Court drew from both eyewitness testimony and medical evidence to uphold the conviction. PW-1, the deceased’s sister-in-law, testified that she witnessed the appellant using a fishing hook to extract parts of the unborn child while the deceased screamed in agony and begged to be taken to a hospital.

“PW-1’s testimony is natural, consistent, and unimpeached. Nothing was elicited to shake her testimony,” noted the Court, adding that other witnesses, including the daughter of the deceased (PW-3), corroborated the sequence of events.

Most damning was the medical evidence of PW-5, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem:

“The uterus was pale and perforated, with remnants of the foetus present. Death was caused by shock as a result of haemorrhage and septicemia following mid-trimester incomplete abortion.”

The doctor also confirmed that the injuries were consistent with manipulation using a hook-like object, directly tying the invasive act to the fatal outcome.

“Old Age Cannot Wash Away Culpability for a Heinous Act” – Plea for Sentence Reduction Dismissed

The appellant, now over 70 years old, argued that her age and the lack of intent to cause death should warrant a reduction in sentence. However, the Court firmly rejected this plea.

“The conduct of the appellant borders on barbarity,” said the Court. “Age, though relevant, cannot dilute the gravity of the offence.”

Emphasizing that abortion is a medically regulated act under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, the Court held that the appellant’s actions reflected reckless disregard for law, life, and dignity.

“The Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act prescribes strict conditions and requires competent medical practitioners. The appellant’s actions exhibit reckless disregard for life and human dignity.”

“Seven Years Is Not Excessive – It Is the Minimum Required for Justice”

Finding the original sentence just and proportionate, the Court concluded:

“Given the brutality and the fatal consequences of the actions of the appellant in the facts and circumstance of the case, the sentence of seven years’ rigorous imprisonment cannot, in any manner, be termed excessive.”

The Court stressed that no mitigating circumstance of such nature had been shown that would justify interference with the sentence, and affirmed:

“Sentencing must balance societal interest and individual circumstances. The conviction under Section 314 IPC and the sentence imposed thereof are just, proper, proportionate, and in accordance with law.”

Law Demands Accountability for Reckless Acts Cloaked as Help

This decision from the Gauhati High Court sends a strong message: unauthorized and unsafe abortion practices, even when seemingly consensual, attract strict criminal liability, especially when resulting in death.

The Court’s reasoning reinforces that public health, women's safety, and legal accountability intersect critically in cases involving reproductive procedures. Consent, if obtained for an act manifestly unsafe, cannot cleanse the criminality that follows.

Date of Decision: 13 November 2025