The prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants intentionally caused a miscarriage resulting in death, leading to acquittal.

Judgment :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. Since both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.01.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District- Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 105/2006, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, each of the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under:-

In CRA No. 60/2007

In CRA No. 1088/2007

2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded from the impugned judgment are that the deceased Janaki Bai lived in Rajhara, she had a love affair with the accused/appellant Tirath Suryawanshi and both of them had developed physical relationship. Since, the deceased conceived and became pregnant bearing 2-3 months child in womb, to escape from the societal disparagement, the accused/appellant Tirath Suryawanshi went to a nurse namely Sati Borkar to get the child aborted. On 19.01.2006, the other accused/appellant nurse Sati Borkar administered some medicine to the deceased and ensured that her pregnancy would be terminated within a day. On 20.01.2005, the deceased Janaki Bai told Tirath Suryawanshi that the medicines which he had given to her had no effect upon her. On the next day, as the medicine did not work, the accused/appellant Tirath Suryawanshi along with the deceased Janaki Bai at that time, went to the house of the other accused/appellant nurse Sati Borkar, then the deceased Janaki Bai was taken inside the room and after some time the patient Janaki Bai started screaming as well as crying, upon which the accused persons/appellants took the patient to Muskan Clinic Balod, where the doctor informed them that the patient is dead. Thereafter, the accused persons/appellants brought the dead body back to the house of Nurse Sati Borkar at Village Pathratola. The accused/appellant Tirath reported the matter to the police on 21.01.2006 at about 19:05 and the police registered a case against the accused persons and the investigation agency investigated the matter.

3. During the investigation, the evidence of the accused persons/appellants was collected, the dead body was sent for postmortem. Spot map of the incident was prepared and several articles were seized and a crime no. 25/2006 was registered against the accused persons/appellants.

4. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for alleged commission of offence under Section 314 read with Section 109 of IPC and Section 314 of IPC. The accused persons having abjured guilt were subjected to trial.

5. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses to prove its case against the appellants. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded their innocence and false implication in this case. However, no witnesses have been examined by them in their defence.

6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 60 of 2007 submits that the impugned judgment is illegal, perverse, bad in law and there is no evidence on the record that the appellant ha