JUDGMENT : N. Sathish Kumar, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/sole accused as against the conviction and sentence, dated 24.04.2008, made in S.C.No.72 of 2007, on the file of the learned First Additional District and Sessions Judge (PCR), Trichy. 2. The brief case of the prosecution is as follows: (i) P.W.1-John is the husband of the deceased-Ananthi. P.W.1 and the deceased got two children through the wedlock. Again the deceased became pregnant. To abort the foetus, on 21.02.2005, P.W.1 and P.W.4 took the deceased to the accused clinic. The accused received Rs. 150/- and gave some tablets in order to cause miscarriage. Subsequently, after consuming medicines given by the accused, the deceased developed pain and started bleeding. Therefore, again, on 26.02.2005 P.W.1 and P.W.4 took the deceased to the accused clinic, where she succumbed to injuries. Thereafter, P.W.1 lodged a complaint-Ex.P.1. (ii) P.W.10-Lakshmi was working as Assistant in the Clinic run by the accused. She was also aware that the deceased came to the accused clinic and administered the medicines given by the accused and thereafter, she succumbed to injuries. (iii) P.W.11-the Sub-Inspector of Police, on receipt of the complaint- Ex.P.1 from P.W.1, registered a case in Crime No.76 of 2005 under Section 314 IPC and prepared printed First Information Report-Ex.P.7 and recovered the tablets from the clinic under Form 95. (iv) P.W.13-Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the case for investigation, examined the witnesses, prepared an observation mahazar-Ex.P.2 and rough sketch-Ex.P.10, conducted inquest over the body of the deceased and issued an inquest report-Ex.P.11 and gave a requisition-Ex.P.3 for conducting post-mortem. (v) P.W.6-Dr.Renukadevi, the Medical Officer, on receipt of Ex.P.3, conducted autopsy over the dead body of the deceased and issued Ex.P.5-Post- mortem Certificate with a final opinion-Ex.P.6 that the deceased would appear to have died due to complications of abortion. (vi) P.W.13, in continuation of the investigation, examined the witnesses and arrested the accused on 01.03.2005 and recorded her confession statement, based on which, he has also recovered the tablets from the clinic. (vii) P.W.15 finally laid final report as against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 314, 417, 419 IPC r/w 15(2)(b) and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for the offence under Sections 419 IPC r/w 15(2)(b) and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act and 314 IPC against the accused. 3. Based on the above materials, the trial Court framed charges for the offence under Sections 419 IPC r/w 15(2)(b) and 15(3) of Indian Medical Council Act and 314 IPC against the accused. The accused denied the same. In order to prove the charges, on the side of the prosecution, P.W.1 to P.W.15 were examined and Exs.P.1 to P.13 and MOs.1 to 4 were marked. 4. When the Trial Court examined the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in respect of the incriminating evidences available against her, she denied the same as false. On the side of defence, the accused herself was examined as D.W.1 and no document was marked on her side. 5. The trial Court, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, has found the accused guilty and accordingly, convicted the accused under Section 314 IPC and sentenced her to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default, to undergo two months further rigorous imprisonment. Challenging the said conviction and sentence, the appellant/sole accused has come up with this appeal. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has not established the nature of abortion done by the accused and nature of medicines used by her and in the absence of any evidence to show that the accused caused abortion, she cannot be held guilty under Section 314 IPC. Hence, the learned counsel prayed for allowing of the appeal. 7. Whereas, it is the contention of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that the evidence of P.W.1, P.W.4 and P.W.10 clearly established the fact that the deceased died due to treatment given by the accused for abortion of two months old foetus. The fact that the accused was running a Clinic is not disputed and the same is also clearly established. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the appeal. 8. In the light of the above submissions, when the evidence is analysed, it is not in dispute that the deceased, who is the wife of P.W.1, succumbed to injuries in the Clinic run by the accused. P.W.1 and P.W.4, in uniform voice, have spoken in their evidence that on 21.02.2005, the deceased Anandhi was treated by the accused for abortion. However, due to pain and bleeding, she was again taken to the accused clinic on 26.02.2005. P.W.1 and P.W.4, in uniform voice, have spoken in their evidence that on 21.02.2005, the deceased Anandhi was treated by the accused for abortion. However, due to pain and bleeding, she was again taken to the accused clinic on 26.02.2005. Though the accused is not an Expert in the field, she gave some tablets, which deteriorated the health of the deceased. Thereafter, she succumbed to injuries. 9. Further, P.W.10 said to be the Assistant working under the accused has also clearly spoken about the nature of the treatment given by the accused. The evidence of post-mortem doctor clearly shows that the deceased died only due to complications of abortion. From the evidence of those witnesses, the prosecution has clearly established the fact. The prosecution has also adduced evidence to the extent that the accused is not competent to give such treatment for any one. She has not been registered under the Medical Council of India. Merely because the nature of medicines administered by the deceased has not been established at the relevant point of time, it cannot be said that the deceased was not died due to complications of abortion. The ocular evidence clearly indicates that the deceased was taken to the clinic of the accused and only after administering some medicines given by the accused, she developed complications, which led to the severe bleeding and thereafter, she succumbed to injuries in the hospital itself. This evidence itself clearly established the factum of death of the deceased only while an attempt was made by the accused to abort the foetus. Of course, such exercise has been done with the consent of not only P.W.1 but also the mother of the deceased viz., P.W.4 and the deceased herself. At any event, when the accused has no right under law to cause any miscarriage or abortion, merely on the basis of consent given by the deceased or her family, she cannot escape from the penal action. 10. Thus, this Court is of the view that from the evidence adduced on the side of the prosecution, the overt act of the accused in administering medicines and causing abortion is clearly established. The Trial Court has clearly analysed the evidence and found the accused guilty under Section 314 IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court. 11. The Trial Court has clearly analysed the evidence and found the accused guilty under Section 314 IPC. Therefore, this Court is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment rendered by the Trial Court. 11. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant/sole accused is aged about 65 years and hence, she may be shown leniency and sentence may be modified. The learned counsel would further submit that the appellant/sole accused is also prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs only) as compensation to the family of the deceased. 12. Taking into consideration the fact that the death was caused while causing miscarriage with the consent of the parties, I am of the view that mere directing the appellant to undergo the sentence would not meet the ends of justice. Admittedly, the deceased left with two minor children and the minor children also would be compensated to the loss of life of their mother. In such view of the matter, the appellant/sole accused is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. 1,00,000/- each in the name of two minor children) in a Nationalized Bank, on or before 12.10.2018 and produce the deposit receipt before this Court. On such deposit being made, sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment imposed by the Trial Court is reduced to the period already undergone. However, it is made clear that failure to deposit the amount would result in the sentence imposed by the Trial Court would be restored and the appellant/sole accused shall undergo the remaining period of sentence as ordered by the Trial Court. 13. Post the appeal "for reporting compliance" on 22.10.2018.