The judgment emphasizes the burden of proof on the prosecution to establish the cause of death as a result of criminal abortion, and the importance of eliciting necessary facts from medical witnesses.

1. This revision arises out of a case where a poor young woman, a divorcee, had to die ultimately in the Maternity Hospital, Trichur, where she was taken days after a criminal abortion after being turned away from three hospitals in the local area. Kochu, 28, the first accused, a distant relative of Saffiya, 28, the deceased in the case, was in illicit intimacy with her which resulted in her pregnancy. This was aborted without her consent by Kochupennu, the second accused, 42, an unqualified native abortionist at the instance of Kochu, in furtherance of their common intention to cause criminal miscarriage, by administering certain medicine in the vagina of Saffiya. Saffiya was given in marriage while she was very young and two children, Sukkur aged 14 (Pw.1) and Salim, 12, were born to her during the wedlock. While Pw.1 was about 2 or 3 years of age Saffiya was divorced by her husband. Since then she was residing in a small thatched shed consisting of a small room and a kitchen thinly partitioned by cadjan leaves, along with her children. She was eking out her livelihood as an agricultural labourer. Kochu, a married man who was conducting a tea shop about half a kilometre away from the residence of Saffiya, used to make nocturnal visits to her which in due course resulted in her pregnancy. While she was five months pregnant, Saffiya informed Kochu of it. But he was not prepared either to marry her or accept the paternity of the child in her womb. Kochu sought the assistance of Kochupennu to terminate the pregnancy. At about 9.30 p. m. on September 13, 1975 Kochu and Kochupennu came to the house of Saffiya and Kochu wanted Saffiya to save his honour and submit to abortion. Much against her will Saffiya was compelled to submit to the wishes of Kochu and at the instance of Kochu, Kochupennu administered some medicine into the vagina of Saffiya. Before doing this, Pw.1 and his younger brother who were sleeping with their mother on the same mat were asked to go to the kitchen. After an hour, both Kochu and Kochupennu left the house. The next day evening Saffiya developed fever and pain and became restless. As directed by Saffiya, Pw.1 conveyed information of her plight to Kochu. In the evening Kochu came along with Kochupennu to the residence of Saffiya who was thereafter taken to the Mission Hospital at Karanchira. She was denied admission there. They took her to two other hospitals where also they could not secure admission to her. Kochu then took her back to her house and left her there without any treatment leaving her to suffer herself the excruciating pain and agony. When her condition deteriorated, she sent a chit through Pw.1 to Pw. 4, the President of the local mosque seeking assistance. Pw. 4 directed Pw. 5, the Secretary, to take Saffiya to the Government Hospital and Pw. 5 accordingly removed her immediately in a car to Trichur where he contacted one Dr. Ibrahim who accompanied him to the Maternity Hospital, Trichur. Dr. Vijayalakshmi (Pw. 9) examined Saffiya at 10.30 p. m. on September 21, 1975 and admitted her in the hospital for treatment. On examining Saffiya, Pw. 9 suspected criminal abortion and gave intimation of the same (Ex. P2) to the Town East Police Station. Pw. 6, Sub Inspector of Police, on receipt the intimation on 23-9-1975 visited the hospital at 6.30 p.m. and recorded Ex. P3 statement of the deceased. The FIR. prepared in this regard was transferred to the Valappad Police station within the limits of which the occurrence took place. Pw. 10, the Sub Inspector of Police, Valappad, during investigation prepared a scene mahazar Ex. P9 and questioned Pws.1 and 2 and others. While under treatment Saffiya died in the hospital at 10.20 a. m. on October 25,1975. Pw. 7, Head Constable, who held inquest, prepared inquest report Ex. P1. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. Jayaprakash who issued Ext. P6, postmortem certificate. This, in short, is the prosecution case.

2. The accused denied the prosecution case