Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. The appellant before this Court is a woman who by the trial Court has been found guilty of causing death by an act intending to cause miscarriage and is sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 314 of the Penal Code. At the beginning there were two other male co-accused with the appellant. One of the accused Laxman Singh died just before the framing of the charge and his name was expunged from the record of the case by order, dated 17-11-1986 passed by the trial Court. Another co-accused Birendra Sharma went all the way with this appellant in facing the trial. However, by the same judgment by which the present appellant was convicted and sentenced, he was acquitted with the finding recorded by the trial Court that there was no evidence direct or circumstantial to connect him with the alleged offence. 2. The prosecution case was instituted on the basis of a written report (Ext. 2) made by a certain Madan Mohan Sharma (PW2) on 8-2-1982 at 1.30 p.m. who was posted at that time as Sub-Inspector of Police at Muzaffarpur town police station. A formal FIR (Ext.3) incorporating the written report was later drawn up on the same day at 2.30 p.m. In his written report, Madan Mohan Sharma stated that on receiving confidential information, he along with Assistant Sub-inspector of Police S. Salam and Sachidanand Jha. Havaldar of the town police station, Muzaffarpur came to the place of the appellant Kishori Devi, wife of late Laxrnan Singh at Mohalla Balughat, New Colony, Muzaffarpur. On making enquiry, there he came to learn that one or two days earlier an unkown girl who was in the state of pregnancy was brought to the house of the appellant by a person who was known as Birendra Sharma Jee and who resided in the same Mohalla (the other accused acquitted by the trial Court); that in the night of 7-2-1982 that girl was killed by the appellant, Laxrnan Singh and Birendra Sharma who fled away leaving her body inside a room in the house. It was further stated in the report that thereupon the informant opened the room by undoing its chain in presence of two Mohalla witnesses, namely, Hiralal Pd. (PW-1) and Arvind Kumar (not examined as witness). It was further stated in the report that thereupon the informant opened the room by undoing its chain in presence of two Mohalla witnesses, namely, Hiralal Pd. (PW-1) and Arvind Kumar (not examined as witness). On going inside the room, he found the body of an unknown girl in a lifeless state lying on a wooden chowki and covered by a blanket and a sheet. He examined the body after removing the blanket and the sheet and made enquiries but the body could not be identified. The report concluded by expressing the informants conviction that the appellant, Laxrnan Singh and Birendra Singh together killed the girl and fled away concealing her body inside the room. 3. Having thus recorded his own statement, the informant (PW-2) himself took up investigation and prepared an inquest report (Ext.4) and a seizure list (Ext. 5). 4. Before proceeding further one may note that from the written report a few things are quite clear which can be summarised thus. First, there was no eye-witness of the occurrence leading to death of the unidentified girl. Secondly, there was no allegation that death was caused as a result of trying to cause illegal termination of pregnancy. Rather, the appellant and her two allotted accomplices were outright accused of killing the girl. Thirdly, though it was stated in the written report that the deceased girl was brought to the appellants house by Birendra Sharma, one or two days before she was killed in the night of 7-2-1982. Before the Court no prosecution witness made any such statement. Before the Court, all the prosecution witnesses deposed about the matter from the stage when the informant, PW-2 entered inside the room and found the lifeless body lying there. 5. At the conclusion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the three accused under Sections 314/34 of the Penal Code and the trial Court also framed charges against the appellant and the other accused under the aforesaid sections. 6. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case. PW-1 was Hiralal Prasad. He was a resident of that Mohalla in whose presence the informant had opened the room inside which the body of the girl was found lying on a Chowki. PW-2 was the informant. PW-3 was a police photographer who had taken photographs of the lifeless body of the deceased girl. PW-1 was Hiralal Prasad. He was a resident of that Mohalla in whose presence the informant had opened the room inside which the body of the girl was found lying on a Chowki. PW-2 was the informant. PW-3 was a police photographer who had taken photographs of the lifeless body of the deceased girl. He proved the photographs of the deceased (taken face upwards in a lying down position) which were marked as Exts. 6-A to 6-C. PW-4 was one Ashok Kumar Sinha, another resident of the Mohalla, He was declared hostile by the prosecution. PW-5 was the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police who accompanied the informant during the discovery of the body. PW-6 was the doctor who held post-mortem on the body of the deceased girl. He was examined to prove the post-mortem report and a lot would depend upon his testimony but before examining the medical evidence, it would be appropriate to take a look at the oral evidence produced by the prosecution. 7. PW-1 stated that it was in his presence that the police officer, PW-2 had opened the room inside which the lifeless body of the girl was found lying on a Chowki covered by a blanket and a sheet. From the evidence of PW-1, it becomes clear that the room inside which the body of the deceased girl was found was a part of the house of this appellant. 8. PW-2 told the Court, in considerable details, the manner in which he found the body of the deceased girl inside a room of the appellants house. In his cross-examination, he admitted that he neither recognised the appellant by face nor was she present at the place of occurrence. He further admitted that no one claimed before him to be eye-witness of the occurrence leading to the death of the girl. From his evidence, it is clear that save and except the discovery of the body, the preparation of the inquest report and making seizure of the various articles e.g. the articles of clothing, blanket, sheet etc. found inside the room, all other information gathered by him were hearsay. 9. PW-3 as stated above was the police photographer and he simply proved the three photographs taken by him. In cross-examination, he stated that it was not possible for him to say whether or not the deceased was in the state of pregnancy. 10. found inside the room, all other information gathered by him were hearsay. 9. PW-3 as stated above was the police photographer and he simply proved the three photographs taken by him. In cross-examination, he stated that it was not possible for him to say whether or not the deceased was in the state of pregnancy. 10. PW-4 was another resident of the Mohalla. He was declared hostile at the beginning of his deposition and was cross-examined, by the prosecution. In his cross-examination by the prosecution he stated that earlier the appellant worked as a nurse at Dr.Chahals place. The learned trial Court has attached some significance to this statement to support the prosecutions case that the death was caused by an act intending to cause termination of pregnancy. The learned court, however, seems to have overlooked that in his cross-examination on behalf of the appellant, he stated that he had not seen Dr. Chahal and had never gone to his hospital. He further said that this statement that the appellant worked at Dr. Chahals place was based on hearsay. This plainly nullifies his earlier statement regarding the appellant working as a nurse and this circumstances, therefore, must be totally disregarded and excluded from consideration. 11. PW-5 is the subordinate police official who was with the informant, PW-2 when the body of the girl was found. He simply stated that on 8-2-1982 at 1.30 p.m. he along with the informant had gone to the appellants house. The appellants house was identified by the people of the Mohalla. On entering a room of the house they found the body of woman lying on a wooden chowki and covered by a blanket and a sheet. In cross-examination, he said that he was told by the people there that the deceased girl was in a state of pregnancy. 12. On a careful consideration of the oral evidence led by the prosecution all that can be said to have been definitely established is that the dead body of an unidentified girl was found lying inside a room of the appellants house. As noted above, there is no evidence on record that the appellant was working as a nurse or that the girl was brought to her place for illegal termination of pregnancy. As noted above, there is no evidence on record that the appellant was working as a nurse or that the girl was brought to her place for illegal termination of pregnancy. In fact, there is no satisfactory evidence even to the effect that the deceased girl before her death was in the state of pregancy. It is indeed true that both PWs 1 and 2 said that inside the room was found the lifeless body of a pregnant woman but there appears to be absolutely no basis for expressing such an opinion. It may be noted that even in the inquest report (Ext.4) prepared by the informant himself the body is not described as that of a pregnant woman. 13. In the light of the aforesaid position emerging from the oral evidence, now is the turn to examine the medical evidence. 14. PW-6 in his post-mortem report stated as follows : "There was froth found on the both nostril with blood clot. On internal dissection all the viceras found congested. On examination the birth canal there was cotton pad inserted to vagina with blood clot. There is laceration found inside the fornix. External Os. found dialated with blood clot. All the viceras have been preserved as written below: (1) Ulterus with appendix, lungs, livers, kidney and stomach. (2) Died due to shock and haemorrhage. (3) Time since death is within 24 hours. (4) Injury has been caused to birth canal by inserting some foreigh body." 15. In his deposition before the Court, PW-6 added that the patient died due to shock and haemorrhage as mentioned above due to abortion criminally. There does not seem to be any justification for this additional opinion. The opinion concerning abortion was not there in the post-mortem report submitted on 9-2-1982 and the doctor appeared to be clearly adding to his earlier opinion while deposing in Court after about six years. 16. It is both unfortunate and strange that the post-mortem report does not indicate the size of the uterus nor does it give any indication concerning the week of pregnancy, if any. Further, there is no attempt even to explain, and clarify the findings recorded in the post-mortem report. There is no explanation for the blood froth found in the nostril nor for the congestion of all the vicera. Further, there is no attempt even to explain, and clarify the findings recorded in the post-mortem report. There is no explanation for the blood froth found in the nostril nor for the congestion of all the vicera. The injuries found in the birth canal might as well have been the result of a violent rape. The post-mortem report and the medical evidence in this case, thus, appears to be far from satisfactory. On the basis of the medical report, it cannot be said that the deceased girl was in a state of pregnancy and that her death was caused in an attempt to abort the foetus. 17. Thus, the circumstantial evidence produced by the prosecution in this case does not appear to me to be completely incompatible with the innocence of the appellant and to mind it would be quite unsafe to maintain the appellants conviction and to send her to jail on the basis of evidence brought before the Court. In my considered opinion, the appellant in this case is entitled to the benefit of doubt. The judgment and order passed by the trial Court is accordingly set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charge framed against her. 18. In the result, this appeal is allowed and the appellant is discharged from the liabilities of her bail bond.