Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Versus
JUDGMENT
Dipak Misra, J.
victim appellant.
was not carried out and, by that time, her pregnancy was
cover.
7
18th April, 2017, the High Court took note of the fact that
victim before the High Court was that he did not have
but the victim had deserted him in March, 2007, and the
be reproduced:
Issues Opinion
opined thus:
concerned with the future of the foetus but not the life of
the appellant was thirty-five years old when she had gone
sensitivity.
follows:
practitioner’.
reads as follows:
25
[Emphasis added]
and clearly stated that she had been raped and further
at the right time, the grave mental torture that she has
That apart, the report shows that the appellant, who was
Board has not stated that she was suffering from any
old at that time. She was a major. She was able to allege
reproduced below:
Place….
Date…..
retarded she was also an orphan who did not have any
And again:
risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from such
‘1995 Act’) and opined that in the said Act also “mental
the case and came to hold that though the victim had
follows:
concluded:
37. In the said case, the Court took note of the fact that
follows:
week. What weighed with the Court was danger to the life
torture.
46. Dr. A.S. Anand, (as His Lordship then was), in his
held:
under:
time.
bound to chain and enslave her with the trauma she has
to family planning.
59
the President on 7th April, 2017. The said Act shall come
over emphasized.
no order as to costs.
...............................................J.
[Dipak Misra]
..............................................J.
[Amitava Roy]
..............................................J.
[A.M. Khanwilkar]
New Delhi;
August 17, 2017.