JUDGMENT R.B. Misra, Judge The present criminal appeal has been preferred by complainant against the judgment dated 22.1.2005, passed in Sessions trial No. 12/02 RBT No. 22/2004, whereby the respondents No. 1 and 2 have been acquitted of the offences under Sections 201, 312, 313 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Rajiv Sharda filed a complaint that his wife Smt. Veena Sharda was undergoing pregnancy of three months after having two daughters, and accused No. 1 and 2 are employees of Minhas Nursing Home, Bhadrkali Road, Daulatpur Chowk, which is in front of residence of the complainant. On 8.4.2001, when complainant was away from home in connection with his business, abdominal problem arose to his wife, the mother of the complainant then consulted the nearest doctors, i.e. accused No. 1 and 2, who visited the house of the complainant and after checking the wife of the complainant, they told that the wife of the complainant is pregnant and they will check up Smt. Veena Sharda in their hospital fitted with modern medical equipments. They further assured that they are specialist in Gynecology. Accordingly, the mother of the complainant took Smt. Veena Sharda to the hospital of accused No. 1 and 2, where accused No. 1 and 2 admitted Smt. Veena Sharda and after their checking and giving medicine, the condition of Smt. Veena Sharda was worsened, on which the accused No. 1 and 2 gave some injection and thereafter bleeding started to his wife. When complainant reached in the hospital of the accused, on demand of the proprietor of the Nursing Home `10,000/-was deposited and the accused No. 1 and 2 took the wife of the complainant to operation theater without the consent of the complainant, his mother and wife and without disclosing the real cause. Later on these accused persons revealed that as the bleeding is not stopping, as such, on advice Smt. Veena Sharda was to be shifted to Una in their private car followed by the complainant in private taxi. The wife of the complainant was thereafter admitted in Nanda Nursing Home, where some medical test was taken and she was taken to Nangal in Ambulance for scanning test without the consent of the complainant and without informing him about the patient and her disease. The wife of the complainant was thereafter admitted in Nanda Nursing Home, where some medical test was taken and she was taken to Nangal in Ambulance for scanning test without the consent of the complainant and without informing him about the patient and her disease. Nobody was allowed to meet the Doctors at Nangal however on enquiry it was revealed that only doctors at Nanda Nursing Home can tell about the nature of ailment. Since the complainant was not satisfied with the treatment, therefore, victim was taken in a vehicle to Principal Raj Kumar Memorial Modern Hospital, Hoshiarpur, where the medical experts revealed that the pregnancy of the victim was terminated without her consent and the victim was operated at Hoshiarpur. It was revealed by the doctors at Hoshiarpur that the doctors at Daulatpur were completely negligent as they have ruptured the intestine while performing operation. The complainant also claimed that the medical evidence regarding termination of pregnancy was made to disappear, as such, he filed complaint before the Magistrate under Sections 201, 313 and 313 of the Indian Penal Code. 3. The Magistrate initially took cognizance after recording preliminary evidence and thereafter committed the case for sessions trial vide committal order dated 16.9.2002. 4. The accused were charged for the aforesaid offences. In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined as many as five prosecution witnesses, whereas the accused, while denying the prosecution case, has adduced three defence witnesses. 5. PW-1 (Raiv Kumar), husband of the victim deposed that on 8.4.2001 when he came back in the evening, he was told by his children about taking of their mother to Minhas Nursing Home. PW-1 further deposed that thereafter he went to Minhas Hospital and his wife was admitted in the said hospital. She was bleeding a lot. He was asked to deposit `10,000/- for the treatment and victim was taken to the operation theater for surgical operation. After two hours the victim was advised to take to Nanda Nursing Home, Una for her operation and she was taken to Nanda Nursing Home, where Dr. Nanda charged `12,000/-and thereafter referred the case to Satluj Diagnostic Centre at Nangal. PW-1 deposed that the doctor at Satluj Diagnostic Centre did the scanning etc. and thereafter his wife was again taken to Nanda Nursing Home Una, where she was taken to the Operation Theater and he was told by Dr. Nanda charged `12,000/-and thereafter referred the case to Satluj Diagnostic Centre at Nangal. PW-1 deposed that the doctor at Satluj Diagnostic Centre did the scanning etc. and thereafter his wife was again taken to Nanda Nursing Home Una, where she was taken to the Operation Theater and he was told by Dr. Nanda that surgical operation has to be performed on his wife as her condition was critical. PW-1 further deposed that he was not satisfied with the treatment, as such, he took his wife in a vehicle to Modern Hospital at Hoshiarpur, where it was told by the doctor that the pregnancy of his wife has been terminated without her consent and there was serious negligence on the part of the doctors. In endeavour to support the prosecution case, PW-1 has stated that Minhas Nursing Home is opposite to his house and he has been visiting Minhas Nursing Home even prior to this incident and Sudesh Kumari is mother of Shelinder Kumar, the proprietor of Minhas Nursing Home. PW-1 has denied the suggestion that in the ultrasound test the doctor had told him that his wife was carrying a female baby. 6. PW-2/(Ajay Kumar), in his endaveour to support the prosecution case, has stated that he was told by PW-1 that his wife has been brought by the doctors of Minhas Nursing Home Daulatpur to Nanda Nursing Home without his consent and when PW-2 went to Nanda Hospital along with PW-1, he noticed that the victim was unconscious and lateron the victim was referred to Nangal Diagnostic Centre for Ultra Sound and lateron the victim was taken by PW-1 to Hoshiarpur in unconscious state. PW-2 was told by PW-1 that doctors at Daulatput Hospital did not properly treat his wife. In cross-examination PW-2 stated that PW-1 is his cousin (Mother’s sister’s son). He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of PW-1. 7. PW-3/(Dr. Anop Kumar), of Modern Hospital, Hoshiarpur has stated that the victim Smt. Veena Sharda remained admitted in the hospital from 9.4.2001 to 22.4.2001, as the victim patient was shifted from a private hospital in Una for the termination of pregnancy, followed by abdominal pain. 7. PW-3/(Dr. Anop Kumar), of Modern Hospital, Hoshiarpur has stated that the victim Smt. Veena Sharda remained admitted in the hospital from 9.4.2001 to 22.4.2001, as the victim patient was shifted from a private hospital in Una for the termination of pregnancy, followed by abdominal pain. PW-3 further stated that termination of pregnancy is governed by the provision of Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act and under the said Act the doctor performing the termination of pregnancy should be an MBBS, trained under a qualified gynecologist and was required to have experience of assisting atleast in 25 cases. Pw-3 in cross-examination has stated that written consent of the patient is required before termination of the pregnancy. 8. PW-4/(Veena Sharda), while supporting the prosecution case has stated that on 8.4.2001 when she experienced pain in his stomach and started feeling giddy, she brought this fact to the notice of her mother-in-law. Accordingly, the mother-in-law of PW-1 called both the accused to her house and thereafter the accused took PW-4 to their Minahs Nursing Home at Dharampur run by accused Deepak and Neelam and was medically examined. The accused demanded to pay `2000/- for medical treatment. PW-4 was given injection and tablets were also given after admission in the Nursing Home and thereafter she started bleeding. In the mean time the husband of PW-4 i.e. PW-1 also came there and thereafter she was taken to other room and her husband was asked to pay `10,000/- more too which was deposited by her husband. Thereafter, PW-4 become unconscious and when regained consciousness, she came to know that she has already been operated for major operation and her pregnancy was also terminated without her consent. PW-4 in cross-examination has stated that she had filed a complaint before the District Consumer Forum, Una, wherein son of Sudesh Kumari Minhas, namely, Surinder Kumar was impleaded as party. She has also lodged a complaint regarding this incident and inquiry was conducted by Dy. S.P. 9. PW-5/(Dr. Satbir Singh), conducted the ultrasound Ex. P-3 of PW-4. According to PW-5 Gall-bladder, common duct, liver, spleen, pancreas, both kidneys, uterus and urinatory bladder were normal sonographically. Uterus was large in size and air and collection of fluid were seen in the uterine cavity and there was suggestion of perforation of posterior wall of uterus. 10. S.P. 9. PW-5/(Dr. Satbir Singh), conducted the ultrasound Ex. P-3 of PW-4. According to PW-5 Gall-bladder, common duct, liver, spleen, pancreas, both kidneys, uterus and urinatory bladder were normal sonographically. Uterus was large in size and air and collection of fluid were seen in the uterine cavity and there was suggestion of perforation of posterior wall of uterus. 10. DW-1/(Malkiat Singh) has stated that he was running Karyana Shop at Daulatpur and his shop is situated in front of Minhas Nursing Home. Sudesh KUmari is working in Health Department and posted at Pirthipur, at a distance of about 3-4 kilometers from Daulatpur. The wife of DW-1 has delivered a child in this nursing home. Sudesh Kumari is a doctor in the nursing home and both the accused in the present case are not working as doctors in the nursing home. DW-1 has further stated in cross-examination that the accused were not present in the nursing home when his wife has delivered a child. DW-1 has denied that both the accused were working in Minhas Nursing Home, where wife of PW-1 was admitted. He also denied depositing of `10,000/-by PW-1. DW-1 has also stated in cross-examination that both the accused were running a Chemist shop in front of his shop. Further stated that now a days, both these accused are running a Tent House shop adjoining to his shop. 11. DW-2/(Sh. Jasbir Singh) also stated that Minhas Nursing Home is owned by Sudesh Kumari and when he visited the said Nursing Home in connection to two previous deliveries of his wife, she was attended upon by Sudesh Kumari and one doctor whose name he did not know. DW-2 in cross-examination has also stated that the doctor who attended his wife is not presently working in the Nursing Home, however, he has shown his ignorance that accused in the present case has treated the wife of PW-1 at Minhas Nursing Home on 8.4.2001. DW-2 also gave different versions, which goes in favour of the accused. 12. On analysis of prosecution witnesses and material on record, we find that nothing has been brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate its case. It has been stated by PW-1 that his wife (PW-4) was negligently treated by doctors/accused in Minhas Nursing Home, by terminating her pregnancy without her consent as he was asked to deposit `10,000/- for treatment of his wife on 8.4.2001. It has been stated by PW-1 that his wife (PW-4) was negligently treated by doctors/accused in Minhas Nursing Home, by terminating her pregnancy without her consent as he was asked to deposit `10,000/- for treatment of his wife on 8.4.2001. Perusal of the record shows that the complainant (PW-1) failed to produce any receipt of deposit of `10,000/- or any prescription slip or any other document, showing that his wife (PW-4) was ever admitted or treated in Minhas Nursing Home and the doctors at Minhas Nursing Home without consent of PW-4 had terminated her pregnancy. No material has been brought on record to indicate that PW-4 (Smt. Veena Sharda) was ever admitted in Minhas Nursing Home at Daulatpur. It is not probable that a young woman after visiting Minhas Nursing Home for medical consultation and after depositing `2,000/-, shall not procure any receipt for the same and further after being taken to operation theater without her consent would not bother to know as to what was happening. If PW-1 i.e. the husband of victim Veena Sharda has truly deposited `10,000/-, then what prevented him to procure receipt. It cannot be believed that a woman after being taken for surgical operation without her consent or without the consent of the attendant (PW-1) would not be vigilant enough to procure the prescription slip, receipt of deposit of the amount and would not collect any material regarding medical treatment and termination of her pregnancy. 13. On appraisal of the prosecution witnesses, material on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge has rightly arrived at findings that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In our considered view also, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the records are insufficient to support the claim of the claimant. The prosecution was rightly found not successful in bringing home the guilt to the accused, as such, the verdict of learned Additional Sessions Judge acquitting the accused respondents need no interference, therefore, the criminal appeal, being devoid of any merit, is dismissed.