DAS, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal against conviction under Sections 314, 304 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for ten years under both the Sections 304 Part II and 314 of the Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence was passed under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 2 ) WHAT happened is as follows :-THE deceased Minati Nundi was a school teacher at Naihati and she was preparing for her Degree Examination in arts. She married one Dibyendu Pal of Naihati under the Special Marriage Act without the knowledge and consent of the parents. They visited each other after the marriage and as a result Minati conceived in April 1962. Minati thereafter took care of hide her pregnancy from all her relations and told her husband to go to Jamshedpur to find out a job for her. For the purpose she gave him Rs. 100/- and Dibyendu left for Jamshedpur. Thereafter she became very much restive and at one stage decided to end her life by drowning herself into the Ganges. She was saved by a friend and suggested that she could get rid of the child with the help of a doctor. She is P. W. 18 and she met P. W. 3 Ashit, an Engineering student and enquired of him if he could find a competent doctor to help Minati. P. W. 3 denied any acquaintance with any such doctor, but he told her that he would consult P. W. 11, his friend Ajay Banerjee. One or two days after Ashit came to Minati's house and told that Ajay alias Bhandool had spoken to the appellant and that Minati could consult him over the ailment. Thereafter Mintai with P. W. 18 Mira and P. W. Ashit went to appellant Amulya doctor's house where his dispensary was located. P. W. 11, Ajay, also joined them and Minati was introduced to the doctor who was a homoepath. The doctor examined her and then suggested that she might be better examined on the next day. Next morning which was a Sunday Minati and Mira went to Amulya doctor and was joined by Ashit and Ajay at the dispensary according to previous arrangement. The doctor examined Minati while Mira was waiting outside and told that she was quick with child and that it was two to three months old. Next morning which was a Sunday Minati and Mira went to Amulya doctor and was joined by Ashit and Ajay at the dispensary according to previous arrangement. The doctor examined Minati while Mira was waiting outside and told that she was quick with child and that it was two to three months old. The doctor enquired if she was married and thereafter the doctor was paid Rs. 30/- towards purchase of medicine. She was asked to come to the doctor's dispensary one day later i. e. on 17. 12. 62 at 9/9. 30 a. m. Thereafter it was arranged between Minati and Mira that Minati would come to Mira's house, but she proceeded alone towards the appellant's dispensary. On the way, she requested ashit to accompany her, but Ashit tried to avoid. He then went to Ajoy's dispensary at about 10 A. M. and arrived at the appellant's dispensary with Ajay. Minati was then sitting on a bench and the appellant and his son were present there. They noticed some surgical instruments on the table and Ashit enquired as to what the homoeopathic doctor would do with the surgical instruments. But the appellant asked him to mind his own business. Ashit and Ajoy were then asked to stay outside. Minati came inside and the door was closed from within. After about 15 minutes the doctor came out with a rubber tube about 1 yard in length. His countenance fell and the expression that he put on at that time was one of despair. He told that Minati's respiration was failing and that oxygen could have been valuable at that hour. Ajay then ran to the municipal office for oxygen which he could not procure without a prescription and the requisite hire-charge of Rs. 8/ -. Meanwhile Ashit proposed calling another doctor but the appellant did not agree. They then went inside and found Mintai lying motionless on a bench. Ashit and Ajay were then threatened not to make any disclosure. Mira also came to the doctor's dispensary on hearing from Ashit that Minati was lying in a precarious condition at the dispensary. She found the main door closed and went through the back door and she was similarly threatened. She found Mira lying motionless on her back in the outer chamber of the dispensary. Mira also came to the doctor's dispensary on hearing from Ashit that Minati was lying in a precarious condition at the dispensary. She found the main door closed and went through the back door and she was similarly threatened. She found Mira lying motionless on her back in the outer chamber of the dispensary. Mira was detained for some time and asked to keep it secret on pain of disfiguration of her face by acid thrown at her by one of the retained goondas of the doctor. Thereafter on July 20, 1962 a report appeared in the newspaper Jugantar about the discovery of a decomposed dead body of an unidentified young lady within a big trunk at Sealdah station with a photograph annexed. Minati's father and relations recognized her and some of the relations went to Sealdah. The dead body was identified by Minati's sister Pranati, her younger brother Asis and several other relations. Investigation was taken up and gradually the appellant and two sons were arrested. Some seizures were made from dispensary and from elsewhere. The dead body was sent to the morgue and the post-mortem examination was held. But the doctor could not give any opinion as to the cause of death of the deceased. ( 3 ) THE learned Sessions Judge found that Minati was carrying and that she died as a result to attempt to cause of miscarriage by the appellant and he therefore convicted him. ( 4 ) THE defence is a plea of innocence and a denial of having anything to do with Minati. ( 5 ) THE learned Judge relies on the evidence of P. W. s 3, 11, and 18 and also the husband, P. W. 20, for holding that Minati was carrying and that the child was about three months old. The husband undoubtedly is a competent person to depose on the point and the letters including exhibit 18 show, notwithstanding the evidence of the post-mortem doctor that she was carrying and she lost her life in course of an attempt at abortion. The learned Judge has extensively dealt with the evidence of this post-mortem doctor and though the learned Judge appears to have been rather too harsh on the doctor, we think that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge is correct. The learned Judge has extensively dealt with the evidence of this post-mortem doctor and though the learned Judge appears to have been rather too harsh on the doctor, we think that the conclusion arrived at by the learned Judge is correct. He stated that originally he suspected some interference with the cervix by putting it down to some extent by forcep, but he was not definite about it. He also spoke of dilation of the O. S. though he could not be definite. He stated that all the organs of the body including the uterus were badly decomposed. It is not unlikely that the doctor was misled because the uterus was also badly decomposed. Exhibit 18 is a letter from the deceased to her husband at Jamshedpur and this letter discloses that she was taking costly medicines to get rid of the child as the marriage was under the Special Marriage Act without the knowledge and consent of the parents. She wrote to her husband in that letter ?rather I am approaching nearer to you by carrying your child instead of moving away?. This shows that the deceased was quick with child and the child was born in wedlock, though for social opprobrium she could not tell her parents that she married without their consent under the Special Marriage Act. On the evidence we do not find any difficulty in agreeing with the learned Judge's view that Minati was carrying and that there was an attempt at miscarriage which might have caused her life. The evidence has disclosed seizure of an empty bottle of ethyl chloride from the dispensary used as anaesthesia. The doctor stated that ethyl chloride may produce congestion of the several organs of the deceased, and use of excessive quantity of ethyl chloride may produce depression of the central nervous system and the respiratory center. It may also produce cardiac weakness and sometimes failure, if a patient has a weak heart. Even normal use of ethyl chloride might cause a failure of the heart. Undoubtedly use of anaesthetics require some training, and before use of ethyl chloride as anaesthetic, it is essential that the heart and urine of the patient should be examined. It may also produce cardiac weakness and sometimes failure, if a patient has a weak heart. Even normal use of ethyl chloride might cause a failure of the heart. Undoubtedly use of anaesthetics require some training, and before use of ethyl chloride as anaesthetic, it is essential that the heart and urine of the patient should be examined. We have, therefore, evidence of an empty bottle of ethyl chloride and of use of forceps and the two together may lead to an inference that death was caused in course of an attempt at miscarriage. There is no doubt that the dead body recovered is the dead body of Minati and the dead body was identified by P. W. s 1, 5, 13 and 24 all relations. The evidence of Pranati was referred to by the learned Judge. It is true that on the night before she was restless and said that she had her monthly course. Obviously this was to hide her anxiety and it is in evidence that she did not disclose her marriage even to her mother or sister. Not much importance can be placed on what she told to Pranati on the night before and it was only to divert Pranati's attention. ( 6 ) THE next important point is how and where this attempt of miscarriage was made and whether the appellant caused the death in course of such an attempt. The evidence comes from the three witnesses P. W. s. 3, 11, and 18 and they are the witnesses upon whose evidence the learned Judge comes to a decision that this appellant attempted at miscarriage and thereby caused her death. The learned Sessions Judge has discussed their evidence in some details and we do not, therefore, feel that we should cover the same evidence again. These witnesses told in their evidence that according to the previous arrangement she came to the doctor's dispensary in the morning of July 17, 1962. P. W. s. 3 and 11 also came to that dispensary. Thereafter Minati was taken inside the room and the room was closed from inside while P. W. s. 3 and 11 were sitting outside. Within 15/20 minutes the doctor came out highly perturbed and told that Minati's respiration was falling and suggested if oxygen could be made available. P. W. s. 3 and 11 also came to that dispensary. Thereafter Minati was taken inside the room and the room was closed from inside while P. W. s. 3 and 11 were sitting outside. Within 15/20 minutes the doctor came out highly perturbed and told that Minati's respiration was falling and suggested if oxygen could be made available. P. W. 11 ran for oxygen from the Municipality but could not get it without prescription from a doctor and without money. At this time he came to learn that Minati was dead and Minati was lying on her back on a bench inside. P. W. 11 also came up there and both of them were taken inside. They found Minati dead, but the appellant warned them not to divulge anything and threatened them that if the matter came out, they would be in difficulty. He also threatened them in the name of gundas. P. W. 18 got an information and came to the spot and somehow managed to get in by a second door and found Minati was lying dead. She was also threatened by saying that acid would be thrown on her face if she disclosed. They thereafter returned. They did not speak to anybody anything about this till the dead body was recovered in a trunk at Sealdah station on the 22nd. Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the State has also laid stress upon the evidence of these witnesses and has submitted that their evidence clinches the issue and shows beyond all doubts that it is this appellant Amulya who attempted at miscarriage and thereby caused the death. The important arises whether these witnesses are also accomplices. The term accomplice in its fullness includes all persons who have been concerned in the commission of a crime, all participes criminis, where they are concerned in strict legal propriety as principals in the first or second degree, or merely as assessories before or after the fact. An accomplice is undoubtedly a person who has concurred in the commission of an offence i. e. a guilty associate in a crime. Now miscarriage is an offence under the law by Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code and if, therefore, the witnesses assisted her in getting miscarriage they are accomplices under the law. An accomplice is undoubtedly a person who has concurred in the commission of an offence i. e. a guilty associate in a crime. Now miscarriage is an offence under the law by Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code and if, therefore, the witnesses assisted her in getting miscarriage they are accomplices under the law. The evidence shows that all the three witnesses knew that Minati was carrying and that she was quick with a child for about three months and that she was keen on getting abortion. Indeed the evidence shows that they suggested that they could find a way out. This was suggested to Minati by P. W. 3. P. W. 3 then consulted P. W. 11 and this appellant was suggested as the doctor who would arrange this miscarriage. They were present on the day before when she was examined for the first time and the doctor said that she had conceived. In their presence on the next day when the actual abortion was attempted, she died and their conduct after this is not only mysterious but hateful. They were friends of Minati who suggested this course but after Minati died they kept mum over it for five days till the recovery of the trunk at Sealdah Station. It is in their evidence that they were threatened by the doctor, but apparently this was guilty conscience that kept tem silent. It is unthinkable that the threat would keep them mum for five days and they were three (two young men one young woman) said to be the friends of Minati. They did not disclose it to the parents, they did not disclose it to the police and they did not disclose to their friends even, and the natural inference should be that either they did not know it or that they were terribly afraid to disclose it as they were accomplices. We have no doubt that they were accomplices in the full sense of the term and it well-settled that accomplice evidence should not be accepted unless it is corroborated by some other evidence on record. It is also well-settled that the corroboration of accomplice evidence must be by independent testimony and conform in material particulars not only that the crime has been committed but also that the prisoner has committed the crime. It is also well-settled that the corroboration of accomplice evidence must be by independent testimony and conform in material particulars not only that the crime has been committed but also that the prisoner has committed the crime. This corroboration may be by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence but in any case the corroboration must be from independent source and not from one another. Evidence of an accomplice is tainted evidence and one tainted evidence cannot corroborate another tainted evidence. Keeping this law before us let us see how far the evidence of these three accomplice witnesses P. Ws. 3, 11 and 18 is corroborated. The learned Judge of course treated them not as accomplice but we are unable to agree with this view. The learned Judge upon that premises spoke of corroboration by each other but if they are accomplices their evidence does not corroborate each other. Undoubtedly there is no other direct evidence of corroborations and the on corroboration Mr. Banerjee, the learned Advocate for the State, could think of was recovery of the surgical instruments from the dispensary of the appellant. Recovery of ordinary surgical instrument from a dispensary of either an allopathic doctor or a homoeopathic doctor is not such a circumstance upon which we may say that miscarriage must have been caused by this homoeopathic doctor. The professor of Forensic Medicine has again stated that of these seizures only one Ext. 12/1 is an instrument which is used for causing abortion. But this instrument was seized not from the dispensary of the appellant from the dispensary of one Ananta Chakraborty who has not been examined. We do not know how a seizure from Ananta Chakraborty's dispensary may be evidence of a circumstantial nature against the appellant Amulya Mukherjee. It is true that the investigation officer stated that Amulya made a statement and pursuing to that statement he recovered that instrument from Ananta Chakrabarty's dispensary. It is not the prosecution case that Amulya was under arrest or that he led the police party to Ananta Chakrabarty's dispensary for the seizure. It is not therefore legal evidence and the seizure from Ananta's dispensary cannot be utilized by the prosecution as the evidence against the appellant. The other instruments may be used for other purpose also and their recovery cannot, therefore, be said to be a circumstance corroborative of the evidence of the three witnesses P. Ws. It is not therefore legal evidence and the seizure from Ananta's dispensary cannot be utilized by the prosecution as the evidence against the appellant. The other instruments may be used for other purpose also and their recovery cannot, therefore, be said to be a circumstance corroborative of the evidence of the three witnesses P. Ws. 3, 11 and 18. The evidence of these three witnesses is, therefore, entirely uncorroborated and no conviction can be founded on the uncorroborated testimony of the accomplices. We have again in evidence that P. W. 11 is the son of a homoeopathic doctor and he still runs the dispensary. The appellant sat in that dispensary for some time and gave it up 1 ? year prior to the date of the incident. It is also in evidence that the dispensary is still running although it is claimed that only medicines are sold there. The evidence is that it was this P. W. 11 to whom Minati was referred to for the purpose of causing abortion. He was consulted by P. W. 3 and the evidence is that this witness P. W. 11 suggested Amulya doctor. Why did his friends go to him when the girl was in difficulty and wanted an abortion. Could it be that she was so unnerved, as to go to a doctor who was know as quick dealing with abortion cases. The evidence of the shop-keeper who sold the trunk is that two young men came and purchased the trunk. P. Ws. 3 and 11 are the two young men of the locality. Amulya's sons wee shown to the shop-keeper and he denied that they were the persons. The rickshawpuller who carried the trunk also stated that two men put that trunk on his rickshaw at Naihati Station. He also denied that Amulya's sons were these two persons. P. Ws. 3 and 11 are young men who even on the prosecution evidence from thebeginning were helping Minati to have miscarriage and the defence suggestion that whatever was done was done by P. W. 11 cannot, therefore, be altogether ruled out. The case entirely hinges on circumstantial and this is one of the circumstances which goes against the finding with any degree of certainty that the miscarriage was done by the appellant and could not have been done by anybody else and the benefit should always go to this appellant. The case entirely hinges on circumstantial and this is one of the circumstances which goes against the finding with any degree of certainty that the miscarriage was done by the appellant and could not have been done by anybody else and the benefit should always go to this appellant. The evidence against Amulya under Section 314 I. P. C. therefore is virtually nil although the girl seems to have died in an attempt at miscarriage. ( 7 ) AMULYA has been convicted under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code also. We do not know how the learned Judge after convicting him under Section 314 I. P. C. for causing death in an attempt at miscarriage also convicted him under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. In any case this conviction cannot stand. ( 8 ) THE appellant has also been convicted under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code for causing disappearance of the dead body. We may at once point out that there is absolutely no evidence that this appellant Amulya who put that dead body in that trunk, brought it to Naihati Station and put it into a train bound for Sealdh. Amulya is stated to be well-known in his locality and he occasionally came to the Naihati Station and the prosecution's failure to produce a single witness to show that Amulya accompanied the trunk and put it into the railway compartment goes against the prosecution version of the story. We have besides the evidence of the rickshaw-puller and the shop-keeper and both of them denied that Amulya either purchased the trunk or pout the trunk into the rickshaw and there is no scope for surmise that they were telling a lie nor is there anything to show that their alleged version before the Investigating Officer should be taken in preference to the version on oath in Court. ( 9 ) IN the result, therefore, we give the benefit of doubt to the appellant Amulya. The appeal is allowed, the order of conviction and the sentence passed on the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted. He is discharged from the bail bound. ( 10 ) NONE appears for the appellant. At our request, Mr. Sourendra Prosad Talukdar, Advocate, appeared as amicus curiae. This Court express its appreciation to the assistance rendered by him. K. K. Mitra, J. : I agree. He is discharged from the bail bound. ( 10 ) NONE appears for the appellant. At our request, Mr. Sourendra Prosad Talukdar, Advocate, appeared as amicus curiae. This Court express its appreciation to the assistance rendered by him. K. K. Mitra, J. : I agree. Appeal allowed.