Female foeticide: Karnataka HC refuses to quash case against 3 accused of helping couple identify sex of foetus
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to quash criminal proceedings for female foeticide against three persons accused of helping a couple identify the sex of their foetus, leading to the abortion of the female foetus [Sardamma & Ors v State of Karnataka & Ors, Dr Shashi SL v District Appropriate Authority, Ramanagara].
Justice M Nagaprasanna also lamented that female foeticide is not just a legal offence, but a moral blight and an affront to the Constitution of India.
"This Court cannot be oblivious to the larger societal malaise that forms the backdrop of the present case. Female foeticide is not merely a statutory offence, it is a moral blight and a constitutional affront. The Apex Court has repeatedly underscored that leniency, at the threshold in such matters, risks rendering the law a dead letter and emboldening those who trade in gender discrimination under the cloak of medical expertise," the Court said.
The Court passed the common order on petitions filed by a husband-wife duo accused of acting as agents who helped couples illegally determine the sex of foetuses and a radiologist accused of playing a role in such a crime.
A couple, who were already parents to two daughters, is alleged to have approached the accused agents to determine the sex of the child they were pregnant with.
One of the accused agents is said to have written her name on the hand of the pregnant woman before she went in for an ultrasound scan. This is said to have acted as an indicator to the hospital staff and the radiologist that the scan was to determine the sex of the foetus.
The information regarding the sex of the foetus was then allegedly communicated to the couple through the other agent.
The two agents were booked for the offences under Section 4 (restrictions on where pregnancies can be terminated) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and Section 91 (act done to prevent child from being born) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.
The radiologist was also held complicit in the offence as he was found filing misleading paperwork for the said ultrasound scan. He was accused of thereby leaking information about the foetus' sex to the accused agents.
He was booked under Section 23 (offences and penalties for doctors, medical practitioners, etc. for violating the Act) of the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act, 1994.
In its February 21 order, Court found that there was enough prima facie evidence against all three petitioners for the criminal trial against them to continue and refused to quash the case.
"Interference at this stage under the guise of exercising inherent or extraordinary jurisdiction would amount to throttling a legitimate prosecution in its infancy. The truth or otherwise of the allegations, the degree of individual culpability and the veracity of evidence, are all matters that properly belong to the crucible of trial," the Court said.
The petitioners were represented by Advocates Hemanth Kumar K and Shridhara K.
Additional Special Public Prosecutor Advocate BN Jagadeesha represented the State and the District Health and Family Welfare Office.
[Read Order]