JUDGMENT Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—Munshi Ram and Dr.Gopal Krishan appellants herein were tried by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shimla in Sessions trial No.48-S/7 of 1995 for the offence under Section 314 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge by judgment and order dated 10.8.1998 convicted both the appellants of the charges levelled against them and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer two months rigorous imprisonment. 2. The appellants have filed two separate appeals challenging their conviction and sentence. Both these appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. The case of the prosecution was that PW-7 Roshan Singh made statement dated 27.11.1992 Ext. PW-7/A under Section 154 Cr.P.C. to the Station House Officer, Police Station, Rohru alleging inter alia that on 26.11.1992 at about 3.30 P.M. he came to know that his niece Ms.Usha Devi was lying in unconscious condition in a private clinic, Chirgaon District Shimla. He immediately rushed to Chirgaon and reached there at about 4 P.M. On inquiry made by him he came to know that Ms.Usha Devi was brought to the private clinic of appellant-Gopal Krishan Malik a Registered Medical Practitioner (for short R.M.P.) by co-accused Munshi Ram for miscarriage of pregnancy, but both the appellants had taken her to Civil Hospital, Sandasu in a taxi bearing Registration No. HP-02-1418 owned by PW-10 Chaman Lal. Thereafter he went to Civil Hospital, Sandasu, where he found his niece dead in a room. He inquired from appellant Dr. Gopal Krishan about the cause of death of his niece who told him that deceased Ms.Usha Devi was brought to his clinic by appellant Munshi Ram for medical check-up. He had given injection to Ms. Usha Devi, whose condition became serious. On seeing her serious condition, she was removed by them to Civil Hospital Sandasu where she was declared dead by the Medical Officer on duty. The complainant thus reported to the police that Ms. Usha Devi died because of negligence of Dr. Gopal Krishan as the injection administered by him resulted in reaction which had led to her death. On the basis of the said report, formal First Information Report Ext. The complainant thus reported to the police that Ms. Usha Devi died because of negligence of Dr. Gopal Krishan as the injection administered by him resulted in reaction which had led to her death. On the basis of the said report, formal First Information Report Ext. PW-7/B was registered by PW-13 Santokh Singh, S.H.O. initially under Section 304 I.P.C. PW-13 rushed to the clinic of Dr. Gopal Krishan. He took into possession the needles used for administering the injection to the deceased; empty container of decadrone Injection; syringe and one Frypan used for boiling the syringe and needles vide seizure memo PW-9/B In the presence of PW-9 Jagdish Chand. He prepared sketch map Ext.PW-13/A of the clinic of appellant Gopal Krishan showing a room where the deceased was given injection by him. He also prepared site plan Ext. PW.13/A and inquest report Ext.PW-11/B. On 30.11.1992 he took into possession documents Exts.PW-3/A, PW-3/B, PW-3/C and PW-3/D in regard to the qualification of appellant Gopal Krishan as a registered medical practitioner; renewal of certificate of registration and a copy of ration card issued by the Panchayat. He recorded the statements of the witnesses and arrested the appellants. The dead body of deceased Ms. Usha Devi was sent to Civil Hospital, Rohroo for post mortem. PW-11 Dr. Subhash Chand on 27.11.1992 at about 9 P.M. conducted the post mortem on the dead body Ext. PW-11 /A. As per post mortem Ext. PW-11 /A. Dr. Subhash Chand opined that the cause of the death of Ms.Usha Devi was haemorrhagic shock from cervix as the deceased was carrying the pregnancy of 24 weeks. Final opinion was given by Dr. Subhash Chand after examining the report Ext. PA of the Chemical Analyzer. During the investigation, it transpired that Ms. Usha Devi was having illicit relation with appellant-Munshi Ram. She conceived a child from his loin. When appellant-Munshi Ram came to know about the pregnancy he had taken the deceased on 26.11.1992 to the clinic of appellant Gopal Krishan at Chirgaon. Appellant Gopal Krishan in furtherence of comnon intention of appellant-Munshi Ram administered the injection to the deceased to cause miscarriage. On completion of the investigation, police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court by PW-10 Tarsem Lai, Station House Officer, Rohroo. 4. Appellant Gopal Krishan in furtherence of comnon intention of appellant-Munshi Ram administered the injection to the deceased to cause miscarriage. On completion of the investigation, police report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was prepared and filed in the Court by PW-10 Tarsem Lai, Station House Officer, Rohroo. 4. On consideration of the police report, the learned trial Court found a prima facie case against both the appellants and accordingly they were charged under Section 314 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 5. In the trial, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses. In their statements recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the plea of the appellants was denial simplicitor. They pleaded that they are innocent and have been implicated in the case falsely. The learned trial court on consideration of the oral and documentary evidence on record found both the appellants guilty of the offence, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid. Now, both the appellants have filed two separate appeals against their conviction and sentence in this Court. 6. I have heard Mr. Jagdish Vats, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.B.B.Sharma, learned Assistant Advocate General for the State. Mr. Vats contended that no direct evidence was led by the prosecution to connect both the appellants with the commission of the offence and there was not an lota of evidence on record to prove that the injury to the cervix of the deceased was as a result of any negligent act of appellant Gopal Krishan. He next contended that the evidence on record would show that the deceased was undergoing treatment prior to her death at different places and due to the said treatment there might be every possibility of bleeding from cervix leading to haemorrhagic shock as no physical violence on vagina was found by the doctor in the post mortem report attributing the cause of her death by causing miscarriage by appellant Gopal Krishan. He lastly contended that in the absence of any satisfactory and reliable evidence connecting the appellants in the commission of the offence, the circumstantial evidence brought on record by the prosecution is not complete and therefore, the learned trial Court has grossly erred in not giving the benefit of doubt to the appellants, and therefore, their conviction and sentence deserve to be set aside. In support of his submission Mr. In support of his submission Mr. Vats placed reliance on Anant Chintaman Lagu v. The State of Bombay, AIR 1960 Supreme Court 500, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 Supreme Court 1622 and State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 2045. 7. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants and gone through the ratio of the above cited decisions. In Anand Chintaman Lagu s case (supra), their Lordships have held that circumstantial evidence in this context means a combination of facts creating a network through which there is no escape for the accused, because the facts taken as a whole do not admit of any inference but of his guilt. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash (supra), the Supreme Court held that the essential ingredients to prove guilt of an accused person by circumstantial evidence are: (1) The circumstances from which the conclusion is drawn should be fully proved; (2) the circumstances should be conclusive in nature; (3) all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and in consistent with innocence; (4) the circumstances should, to a moral certainty, exclude the possibility of guilt of any person other than the accused. 8. In Sharad Birdhichand Sardas case (supra), the Supreme Court said that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not may be established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 9. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 9. In the light of the well settled law, the evidence led by the prosecution in the present case has to be considered. It is the evidence of PW-1 Mukand Singh that appellant Munshi Ram and deceased Usha Devi were known to him. They had a cordial relation with each other. He deposed that he came to know that Munshi Ram had taken Usha Devi to Chirgaon for treatment as she had conceived a child out of her illicit relation with Munshi Ram. He also came to know that Usha Devi was given some medicine at Chirgaon by Dr. Gopal Krishan and after consuming medicine she had died. In the cross-examination he stated that he reported about the relation of Munshi Ram with Usha Devi to her parents about four months prior to her death. Though the evidence of this witness was a hearsay evidence yet, appellant Munshi Ram has not discredited or impeached his version in cross-examination. PW-2 Dr. Rajinder Singh was posted at Primary Health Centre, Sandasu from October, 1992 to January, 1996. He categorically stated that on 26.11.1992 one patient, namely, Usha Devi was brought to the hospital by both the appellants who told him that something had happened to the patient. He medically examined Ms. Usha Devi who was found brought dead. He informed Dr. Ram Lai, the Block Medical Office^ who also examined the deceased and found her already dead. Information about her death was also sent to the police. In the presence of PW-3 D.S. Rana documents Exts. PW-3/A to PW-3/E were taken into possession by the Police vide seizure memo Ext.PW-3/F. 10. PW-6 Bishan Singh is the father of deceased who at the relevant time was posted as teacher in Government Primary School, Thangar, Nerwa Block, Tehsil Chopal District Shimla. On 27..11.1992 four persons from his native village went to his place of posting and informed him that his daughter Ms.Usha Devi fell seriously ill and was brought to the hospital at Rohru. On 27..11.1992 four persons from his native village went to his place of posting and informed him that his daughter Ms.Usha Devi fell seriously ill and was brought to the hospital at Rohru. He along with those persons reached at Rohru around 10 A.M., where several persons from his village were found present. He was informed by some of the co-villagers that his daughter had expired and her dead body was lying in the hospital. He was told by some persons of the village that his daughter was taken by Munshi Ram to the private clinic of Dr. Gopal Krishan at Chirgaon for medical treatment and from Chirgaon both the appellants took her to civil hospital, Sandasu where she was declared dead. He stated that his daughter had died due to the fault of Munshi Ram who took her to Dr. Gopal Krishan for termination of her pregnancy. A suggestion of the appellants that he was not told by anyone about Munshi Rams illicit relation with his deceased daughter was denied by him. In the cross-examination conducted on behalf of Dr. Gopal Krishan he stated that his co-villagers, namely, Man Singh and Lakhi Ram etc. told him that his daughter was taken by Munshi Ram to the private clinic of Dr. Gopal Krishan for termination of pregnancy. 11. PW-7 Roshan Lai supported the averments made by him in his statement Ext. PW-7/A. He deposed that on 26.11.1992 at about 3 RM. on being told by his wife that his niece Usha Devi was lying in a private clinic at Chirgaon, he proceeded to Chirgaon and there he came to know that both the accused persons had shifted his niece to Civil Hospital, Sandasu. He immediately went to Sandasu hospital and found both the accused present there. His niece was already dead by that time. On inquiry made by him Dr. Gopal Krishan told him that Usha Devi was brought by Munshi Ram to his clinic and when he administered an injection to her on persuasion of Munshi Ram, she became unconscious. He also deposed that Dr. Gopal Krishan told him that the deceased was brought for termination of pregnancy by Munshi Ram and inspite of his advice to Munshi Ram, not to go for termination of pregnancy as it was in advance stage, Munshi Ram forced him to terminate the pregnancy. He also deposed that Dr. Gopal Krishan told him that the deceased was brought for termination of pregnancy by Munshi Ram and inspite of his advice to Munshi Ram, not to go for termination of pregnancy as it was in advance stage, Munshi Ram forced him to terminate the pregnancy. He stated that his niece died due to fault of Munshi Ram as he was having illicit relation with her and Dr. Gopal Krishan in furtherance of common intention of Munshi Ram caused her death when he tried to terminate the pregnancy. His testimony was not shattered or impeached in the cross-examination. The evidence of this witness is found to be reliable and convincing to prove that his niece Usha Devi on 26.11.1992 was taken to the clinic of Dr. Gopal Krishan by Munshi Ram for termination of pregnancy. Appellant Dr. Gopal Krishan administered some injection to her as a result of which she became unconscious, and thereafter appellants rushed her to Civil Hospital, Sandasu for medical treatment where she was found brought dead by PW-2 Dr. Rajinder Singh. Both the appellants are identified by PW-2 who took Ms.Usha Devi to Civil Hospital Sandasu. 12. PW-8 Smt.Krishan Devi is the mother of deceased Usha Devi. She stated that on 26.11.1992 she sent her daughter Ms.Usha Devi to Badiara for bringing medicines to her because she was suffering from fever. At about 30 clock she was told by one person from her village that her daughter was taken by Munshi Ram to Chirgaon for termination of pregnancy from a private practitioner. She also came to know that her daughter was taken by Munsni Ram to Sandasu hospital where she was declared dead. She stated that her daughter died because of the fault of Munshi Ram as he had been secretly exploiting her. In cross-examination she has stated that she was suffering from fever. She asked her daughter Ms. Usha Devi to bring the medicine for her ailment. PW-9 Jagdish Chand was the witness of the recovery of the articles taken into possession by PW-13 the Investigating Officer from the clinic of Dr. Gopal Krishan but this witness has turned hostile to the prosecution. In the cross-examination conducted by learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted his signature on recovery memo Ext. PW-9/B, prepared by PW-13 for the recovery of articles from the clinic of Dr. Gopal Krishan in his presence. 13. Gopal Krishan but this witness has turned hostile to the prosecution. In the cross-examination conducted by learned Public Prosecutor, he admitted his signature on recovery memo Ext. PW-9/B, prepared by PW-13 for the recovery of articles from the clinic of Dr. Gopal Krishan in his presence. 13. PW-10 Chaman Lal is the important witness of the prosecution. He is the owner-cum-driver of Maruti Van bearing Registration No. HP-02-1418. The said vehicle was hired by Dr. Gopal Krishan on 26.11.1992 around 10 Oclock to transport a patient, from Chirgaon to Civil Hospital, Sandasu. He deposed that both the accused persons also travelled in the taxi along with the patient. The patient was in serious condition. In cross-examination he testified that Rs. 50/- as taxi charges were paid to him by the Dr. Gopal Krishan. The patient was helped in walking by the accused to enable her to shift in the taxi. The post mortem examination was conducted by PW-11 Dr.Subhash Chand on the dead body of Ms.Usha Devi at Civil Hospital, Rohru on 27.11.1992 at about 9 P.M. According to Dr. Subhash Chand the cause of death was haemorrhagic shock from cervix as the deceased was carrying the pregnancy of about 24 weeks. The final opinion was given by him after receipt of report of the Chemical Examiner Ext. PA. However, in cross-examination he stated that during post mortem examination, he found no symptom of any past disease of the patient, he did not notice the cause of the bleeding from the cervix. PW-13 Santokh Singh Inspector/ S.H.O. conducted the investigation of the case. He categorically stated that he took into possession needles used by Dr. Gopal Krishan for administering the injection to the deceased, empty container of injection decadrone, syringe and one Frypan meant for boiling the syringe and needles vide seizure memo Ext.PW-9/B in the presence of PW-9 Jagdish Chand. In cross-examination he stated that accused Munshi Ram was arrested by him on 29.11.1992 in his village Bhali. However, he stated that before moving application Ext.DX for getting the post mortem examination of Ms.Usha Devi conducted it had come to his knowledge that the deceased had been undergoing treatment at C.M.C. Chandigarh and Shimla etc. which fact was mentioned by him in application Ext.DX. 14. On re-appraisal and objectively evaluating or scrutinizing the entire evidence of the above said witnesses. which fact was mentioned by him in application Ext.DX. 14. On re-appraisal and objectively evaluating or scrutinizing the entire evidence of the above said witnesses. I do not find that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants by the trial court suffers from any serious illegality or infirmity which calls for interference in these appeals. Nothing was elicited from the cross-examination of PWs. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 13 to render their testimony unreliable or untrustworthy or otherwise to discard the same. The prosecution has proved all the circumstances that appellant Munshi Ram had illicit relations with Ms. Usha Devi as a result thereof she became pregnant; he took her to the clinic of appellant Dr. Gopal Krishan at Chirgaon for observation and Dr. Gopal Krishan administered some injection to Ms. Usha Devi on the persistent request of appellant Munshi Ram to abort the pregnancy as deposed by PW. Roshan Singh. The condition of Ms. Usha Devi became serious and, therefore she was shifted to Civil Hospital, Sandasu in the taxi of PW. Chaman Lai for further medical treatment, but as per the version of Dr. Rajinder Singh, Ms. Dsha Devi was found brought dead by the appellants in the Hospital. The defence of the appellants was denial simplicitor without explaining the circumstances appearing against them in the testimonies of the witnesses. Nothing has been brought on record either in cross-examination of the witnesses concerned or in any other evidence to show any good reason as to why they should falsely implicate the appellants in the case. 15. In Dr. Jacob George v. State of Kerala, (1994) 3 Supreme Court cases 430, their Lordships while considering the provisions of Section 314 of the Code of Civil Procedure has observed as under: (Paras 6, 7 and 8 Page 435 Supreme Court) "6. Our law had faced some difficulty when our Penal Code was being enacted. The authors of the Code observed as below while enacting Section 312: "With respect to the law on the subject of abortion, we think it necessary to say that we entertain strong apprehension that this or any other law on that subject may, in this country, be abused to the vilest purposes. The charge of abortion is one which, even where it is not substantiated often leaves a stain on the honour of families. The charge of abortion is one which, even where it is not substantiated often leaves a stain on the honour of families. The power of bringing a false accusation of this description is therefore a formidable engine in the hands of unprincipled men. This part of the law will, unless great care be taken, produce few convictions but much misery and terror to respectable families, and a large harvest of profit to the vilest pests of society We trust that it may be in our power in the Code of Criminal Procedure to lay down rules which may prevent such an abuse. Should we not be able to do so, we are inclined to think that it would be our duty to advise his Lordship in Council rather to suffer abortion, where the mother is a party to the offence, to remain wholly unpunished, than to repress it by provisions which would occasion more suffering to the innocent than to the guilty.” So what finds place in the aforesaid section is the result of very mature and hard thinking and we have to give full effect to it. 7. After the enactment of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the provisions of the Penal Code relating to miscarriage have become subservient to this Act because of the non obstante clause in Section 3, which permits abortion/miscarriage by a registered practitioner under certain circumstances. This permission can be granted on three grounds: (i) Health- when there is danger to the life or risk to the physical or mental health of the woman; (ii) humanitarian- such as when pregnancy arises from a sex crime like rape or intercourse with a lunatic woman; (iii) eugenic- where there is substantial risk that the child, if born, would suffer from deformities and diseases. (See Statement of Objects and Reasons) 8. The above shows that concern for even unborn child was evinced by the legislature, not to speak of hazard to the life of the woman concerned." 16. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, none of the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants can be accepted. 17. For the reasons stated above, these appeals are devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. 18. The appellants are on bail. Their bonds are cancelled and they shall surrender before the trial court forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed upon them. 17. For the reasons stated above, these appeals are devoid of any merit and accordingly dismissed. 18. The appellants are on bail. Their bonds are cancelled and they shall surrender before the trial court forthwith to serve out the sentence imposed upon them. Appeals dismissed.-