Judgment U.C. Dhyani, J. 1. A complaint was written by Brij Mohan on 13.09.1994 to Inspector In-charge, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal against Najma Begum, staff nurse, Government Combined Hospital and Saroj Sharma, staff nurse, Government Combined Hospital in relation to offences punishable under Section 304 IPC. It was mentioned by Brij Mohan in his complaint (Ext. Ka-1) that his sister Kanta Rawat, wife of Brij Mohan Singh Rawat, resident of village Padam Pur Sukhero, Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal came to Government Combind Hospital, Kotdwar in the evening of 12.09.1994. Staff nurses Najma Begum and Saroj Sharma took Kanta Rawat to Najma Begum’s residence. The accused persons voluntarily caused Kanta Rawat with child to miscarry (abort). Kanta Rawat died during such miscarriage/abortion. When she died, her husband was forced to take the dead body to his home. A request was made to the Inspector In-charge, Kotdwar to take legal action against the staff nurses. 2. After the investigation, a charge sheet (Ext. Ka-7) was filed against Najma Begu, and Saroj Sharma both the staff nurses of the Government Combined Hospital, Kotdwar in respect of offence punishable under Section 304 IPC. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions. When the trial began and prosecution opened it’s case, charge for the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC read with Section 34 IPC was framed against the accused persons, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Six witnesses, namely, PW 1 Brij Mohan Gusain (brother of the deceased), PW 2 Brij Mohan Singh Rawat (husband of the victim), PW 3 Urmila Devi, (attendant) PW 4 Kusum Lata (Health Worker), PW 5 S.S. Gusain (Chief Pharmacist) and PW 6 SI Man Singh (I.O.) were examined on behalf of prosecution. Incriminating evidence was put to the accused persons under Section 313 Cr.P.C., in which they denied the allegations levelled against them and also said that they were falsely implicated in this case. 3. Najma Begum admitted that she was posted as staff nurse in the Combined Government Hospital, but she, expressed ignorance to some allegations and denied other allegations levelled against her. Co-accused Saroj Sharma also admitted that she was posted in Government Combined Hospital on 12.09.1994 as staff nurse, but said that she was deputed to work in operation theatre. She also said that she was falsely implicated in this case on account of discrimination. No evidence was given in defence. Co-accused Saroj Sharma also admitted that she was posted in Government Combined Hospital on 12.09.1994 as staff nurse, but said that she was deputed to work in operation theatre. She also said that she was falsely implicated in this case on account of discrimination. No evidence was given in defence. After considering the evidence on record, learned Sessions Judge, Pauri Garhwal did not believe the prosecution story and exonerated Najma Begum and Saroj Sharma of the charges levelled against them. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 23rd July, 2001, present Government Appeal was preferred against the respondent Najma Begum. No Government Appeal was preferred against co-accused Saroj Sharma. 4. PW 1 Brij Mohan Gusain was brother of the deceased, who set the criminal law into motion. He supported the prosecution story and said that his sister died on 12.09.1994 in a Government Combined Hospital, Kotdwar where she had gone for miscarriage/abortion. The lady doctor was not available in the hospital. She had gone on leave. Staff Nurse Najma and Saroj were present in the hospital, who demanded Rs. 300/- from the victim and caused miscarriage/abortion resulting into the death of the victim. Both the staff nurses asked PW 2 (husband of the deceased) to take the victim. She was projected to be unconscious by the staff nurses. When the husband of the victim took the victim to house, it was reveled that she was already dead. The husband of the victim contacted the staff nurses but they refused to attend the victim. PW 1 proved complaint (Ext. Ka-1). PW 1 also met the CMS of the Hospital, who sought explanation from the staff nurses. Said explanation was paper no. 6A/3. (original not brought on record). 5. PW 2 Brij Mohan Singh Rawat was the husband of the victim. In his examination-in-chief, he also supported the prosecution story and said that his wife went to Government Combined Hospital, Kotdwar on 12.09.1994, at 10:00 a.m. The victim was pregnant. The husband and wife decided to terminate the pregnancy, as they had already three children. When the victim was taken to the hospital, Najma was sitting on the chair of the doctor. Co-accused Saroj Sharma mentioned that Najma was the Medical Officer. They demanded Rs. 1200/-, but PW 2 gave only Rs. 500/- to co-accused Saroj Sharma. PW 2 thereafter came back to his house. One woman Urmila was left with the victim. When the victim was taken to the hospital, Najma was sitting on the chair of the doctor. Co-accused Saroj Sharma mentioned that Najma was the Medical Officer. They demanded Rs. 1200/-, but PW 2 gave only Rs. 500/- to co-accused Saroj Sharma. PW 2 thereafter came back to his house. One woman Urmila was left with the victim. When PW 2 went to the hospital again at 2:30 p.m., PW 2 was informed that some medicines were prescribed to the victim. Later on, the condition of his wife deteriorated. The nurses took excuses, the details of which were given by PW 2 in his examination-in-chief. The victim died subsequently. PW 2 informed about the incident to PW 1, who lodged the first information report. 6. PW 3 Urmila Devi was the woman, who was attending on the victim in the Government Combined Hospital at Kotdwar. She also supported the prosecution story and said that the staff nurses demanded Rs. 1200/- from the victim for miscarriage/abortion but was offered only 500/-. PW 3 gave the details of negligence on the part of staff nurses, which negligence caused the death of the victim. 7. PW 4 Kusum Lata, Health Worker, was posted in Government Combined Hospital, at Kotdwar on 12.09.1994. She said in her examination-in-chief that she knew Najma and Saroj Sharma, who were posted as staff nurses in the said hospital. They were not competent to terminate the pregnancy of a woman. PW 4 also said that the staff nurses help the Medical Officers in terminating the pregnancy/causing abortion or help the Doctors in delivery of a child. 8. PW 5 S. N. Gusain, Chief Pharmacist, said in his examination-in-chief that Kanta Rawat was admitted in the hospital on 12.09.2004. PW 5 proved entry Ext. Ka-2 made in the hospital register. PW 6 SI Man Singh was the I.O. of the case, who proved chik FIR (Ext. Ka-4), entry of the same in G.D. (Ext. Ka-5), site plan (Ext. Ka-6) and charge sheet (Ext. Ka-7). He also said that he took statements of the witnesses Balbir Singh Rawat and Kusum Juyal. 9. Undoubtedly, the accused-respondent was posted as staff nurse in the Government Combined Hospital at Kotdwar on the relevant date and was not competent to terminate the pregnancy of any woman. Ka-5), site plan (Ext. Ka-6) and charge sheet (Ext. Ka-7). He also said that he took statements of the witnesses Balbir Singh Rawat and Kusum Juyal. 9. Undoubtedly, the accused-respondent was posted as staff nurse in the Government Combined Hospital at Kotdwar on the relevant date and was not competent to terminate the pregnancy of any woman. According to the allegations, the accused- respondent, along with another accused, took the victim to her (staff nurses’) house for miscarriage, where she (victim) was administered injection. The condition of the victim deteriorated. The victim was again brought to the hospital where she was declared ‘brought dead’. The fact that victim was admitted in the hospital, was proved by the entry made in the hospital register. Although PW 5 proved Ext. Ka-2, but it was not possible for him to establish that it was Kanta Rawat, who died. PW 1, PW 2 and PW 3 have said in unison that it was accused-respondent, who terminated the pregnancy of the victim. Co-accused (non-respondent) indicated to them that the accused-respondent was the doctor. Learned Court below found material discrepancy in the statements of PW 2 and PW 3. It was also said by the trial court that the name of PW 3 (attendant) was not mentioned in the first information report, therefore, her statement was no relied upon by the trial court. 10. Much reliance was placed on the confessional statement (Ext. Ka-3) of accused-respondent by the prosecution. A letter was given by the accused-respondent to the Chief Medical Officer explaining that Kanta Rawat was treated at her (staff nurses’) home. She was not authorized for the same. She also admitted that she (victim) died because of her negligence. The said explanation was given by the accused-respondent to C.M.O. in the presence of PW 1 (brother of the victim). The original of the said application was not field by the Chief Medical Superintendent of Government Combined Hospital, Kotdwar. A suggestion was given on behalf of the accused-respondents to PW 1 that Ext. Ka-3 was got written by the accused-respondent under compulsion. The Chief Medical Superintendent was not examined to prove that he, in fact, received Ext. Ka-3. It is primarily on account of this reason that the Court below did not rely upon Ext. Ka-3, for no unjust reason. 11. Ka-3 was got written by the accused-respondent under compulsion. The Chief Medical Superintendent was not examined to prove that he, in fact, received Ext. Ka-3. It is primarily on account of this reason that the Court below did not rely upon Ext. Ka-3, for no unjust reason. 11. It has also come in the evidence that both the accused persons were beaten up by the crowd on the next day of this incident. A report was lodged by those persons against the alleged offenders. Learned trial court also gave a reference of ruling cited at Lekhakar vs. State, 1990 Criminal Law Journal, NOC 168 saying that Ext. Ka-3 was not a reliable piece of evidence. Hon’ble High Court observed in that case that the confession was not voluntary as the accused was surrounded by 200 people. It casts doubt on the veracity or voluntariness of the confession and accordingly, it would not be safe to act upon the confession, even if it was made admissible in evidence. 12. The greatest lacuna in the instant case was that the post mortem examination of the deceased was not conducted. This fact was also under no dispute that Kanta Rawat died, but her husband did not lodge the report. Inquest report was conspicuous by its absence. Neither inquest nor postmortem of the deceased was conducted. The deceased was cremated without having her postmortem done. The cause of death was not ascertained. It was necessary for the investigating agency to have postmortem examination of the deceased conducted, in order to ascertain the cause of death of the victim. Had the same been done, that would have connected the ‘death of victim’ with the ‘cause of death’, for, the same would have established that the victim died because of miscarriage/abortion. The prosecution suffered major setback on account of this major lacuna in not bringing this important piece of evidence on record. It is being said at the cost of repetition that absence of inquest report and non availability of post mortem report were major lacunae in the prosecution case, which lacunae were hard to be reconciled. 13. Learned trial court has elaborately discussed all the important aspects of the prosecution story, including the prosecution evidence. Trial court has held that the prosecution story was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, for no unjust reason. The accused-respondent was entitled to get the benefit of doubt. 13. Learned trial court has elaborately discussed all the important aspects of the prosecution story, including the prosecution evidence. Trial court has held that the prosecution story was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, for no unjust reason. The accused-respondent was entitled to get the benefit of doubt. There appears to be no illegality or impropriety in the judgment of the Court below. It is established law that when there are two views possible, the view which was taken by the trial court/which goes in favour of the accused, should be accepted. 14. In view of the above, this Court is unable to take a view contrary to what was taken by the Court below. No interference is called for in the impugned judgment. 15. Government Appeal preferred against the judgment dated 23.07.2001 is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.