Judgment : Rajani Dubey, J. 1. Since both these appeals arise out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.01.2007 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District- Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 105/2006, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. By the impugned judgment, each of the appellants stands convicted and sentenced as under:- In CRA No. 60/2007 Conviction Sentence U/S 314 read with Section 109 of IPC R.I. for 05 years with fine amount of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. In CRA No. 1088/2007 Conviction Sentence U/S 314 of IPC R.I. for 05 years with fine amount of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months. 2. Brief facts of the case as unfolded from the impugned judgment are that the deceased Janaki Bai lived in Rajhara, she had a love affair with the accused/appellant Tirath Suryawanshi and both of them had developed physical relationship. Since, the deceased conceived and became pregnant bearing 2-3 months child in womb, to escape from the societal disparagement, the accused/appellant Tirath Suryawanshi went to a nurse namely Sati Borkar to get the child aborted. On 19.01.2006, the other accused/appellant nurse Sati Borkar administered some medicine to the deceased and ensured that her pregnancy would be terminated within a day. On 20.01.2005, the deceased Janaki Bai told Tirath Suryawanshi that the medicines which he had given to her had no effect upon her. On the next day, as the medicine did not work, the accused/appellant Tirath Suryawanshi along with the deceased Janaki Bai at that time, went to the house of the other accused/appellant nurse Sati Borkar, then the deceased Janaki Bai was taken inside the room and after some time the patient Janaki Bai started screaming as well as crying, upon which the accused persons/appellants took the patient to Muskan Clinic Balod, where the doctor informed them that the patient is dead. Thereafter, the accused persons/appellants brought the dead body back to the house of Nurse Sati Borkar at Village Pathratola. The accused/appellant Tirath reported the matter to the police on 21.01.2006 at about 19:05 and the police registered a case against the accused persons and the investigation agency investigated the matter. 3. Thereafter, the accused persons/appellants brought the dead body back to the house of Nurse Sati Borkar at Village Pathratola. The accused/appellant Tirath reported the matter to the police on 21.01.2006 at about 19:05 and the police registered a case against the accused persons and the investigation agency investigated the matter. 3. During the investigation, the evidence of the accused persons/appellants was collected, the dead body was sent for postmortem. Spot map of the incident was prepared and several articles were seized and a crime no. 25/2006 was registered against the accused persons/appellants. 4. The prosecution after completing the due and necessary investigation, led the charge-sheet before the concerned Jurisdictional Magistrate, who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for alleged commission of offence under Section 314 read with Section 109 of IPC and Section 314 of IPC. The accused persons having abjured guilt were subjected to trial. 5. In order to bring home the guilt, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses to prove its case against the appellants. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case and pleaded their innocence and false implication in this case. However, no witnesses have been examined by them in their defence. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, learned Trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 60 of 2007 submits that the impugned judgment is illegal, perverse, bad in law and there is no evidence on the record that the appellant had taken the deceased Janaki Bai to the nurse SatI Bai Borkar for causing miscarriage. The possibility that he must have taken the deceased to nurse for medical treatment or formal treatment cannot be ruled out. The medicine administered by the nurse to the deceased was not within the knowledge of the accused/appellant Tirath Suryawanshi, particularly the nature and effect of the medicines were not within his knowledge, so as to establish that he wanted to cause miscarriage. The medicine administered by the nurse to the deceased was not within the knowledge of the accused/appellant Tirath Suryawanshi, particularly the nature and effect of the medicines were not within his knowledge, so as to establish that he wanted to cause miscarriage. No chemical or any kind of drug was found in the womb of the deceased. There is no report or evidence that the medicine administered to the deceased was meant only for the purpose of causing miscarriage. The cause of death as opined by the specialist is suspected poisoning and suspected criminal abortion. The poisoning in the body of the deceased might have happened due to wrong administration of the drugs, medicine and injection to the deceased. There is also no evidence in the record to the it was the accused/appellant Tirath Suryawanshi persuaded the deceased to go for treatment at village Pathratola in the house of nurse Sati Bai Borkar. It is probable that the deceased herself would have approached the nurse along with the accused/appellant for any kind of treatment and the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned trial Court did not appreciate all these facts and gave wrong findings, as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the aforesaid charge. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No. 1088 of 2007 submits that the sentence recorded by the learned trial Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record and it deserves to be set aside. The prosecution story has not been supported and corroborated with the other prosecution witnesses. The seizure has not been proved against the appellant by the prosecution. The essential ingredients of Section 314 of IPC is not proved and made out against the appellant by the prosecution, therefore, the appellant is likely to be given the benefit of doubt. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly, gave wrong findings and wrongly convicted the appellant SatI Bai Borkar for the aforesaid charge, as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the aforesaid charge. 9. The learned trial Court did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence properly, gave wrong findings and wrongly convicted the appellant SatI Bai Borkar for the aforesaid charge, as such the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the aforesaid charge. 9. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, rightly convicted the present appellants for the alleged offence and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference by this Court. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment with utmost circumspection. 11. It is apparent from record of learned trial Court that it framed charge against the appellant Tirath Suryawanshi in CRA No. 60 of 2007 for offence under Section 314/109 of IPC and against the appellant Sati Bai Borkar in CRA No. 1088 of 2007 for offence under Section 314 of IPC. As per the prosecution case, the deceased Janaki Bai was died due to the act done by the appellant Sati Bai Borkar with an intentto cause miscarriage and the appellant Tirath Suryawanshi is held responsible as he was the one who took the deceased Janaki Bai to the other accused/appellant Sati Bai Borkar for causing miscarriage. 12. The first question of consideration before this Court is as to whether the deceased was died due to any act done by the appellant Sati Bai Borkar with an intent to cause miscarriage of Janaki Bai? 13. PW-12 Dr. Ramteke conducted postmortem of the deceased Janaki Bai and he opined that the cause of death as suspected poisoning and suspected criminal abortion. In para 09 of his cross-examination, he admitted that the abortion can be caused even due to falling or of receiving any injury. In para 12 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he found injection/needle marks on the body of the deceased, however he cannot state on when did the deceased was given injection. In para 17 of his cross-examination, he admitted that in his report he has not written regarding the type of abortion procedure that likely results in death. In para 12 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he found injection/needle marks on the body of the deceased, however he cannot state on when did the deceased was given injection. In para 17 of his cross-examination, he admitted that in his report he has not written regarding the type of abortion procedure that likely results in death. He further stated that when forced abortion is performed or attempted by anyone by way of insertion of anything into the uterus, the remains of that particular thing inserted into the uterus may be found, however, he did not find any medicine, cream or any thing that results in abortion. In FSL report vide Ex. P/25 plumbagin glycoside was found in Article A, B & C, i.e., Article A & B- Viscera of the deceased and Article C-slide of stomach. So, looking to the FSL report, it is proved that the death of the deceased was due to poisoning, but it is not proved that this poisoning was caused at the time of doing any act of abortion to her. 14. PW-01 Dr. A.V. Maheshwar has stated that both the appellants came to his nursing home along with the deceased, whose condition was severe, after examining the deceased he stated that there was no B.P. at all and foam was coming out from her mouth and blood was also coming out from her mouth. After asking the reason of the same from the appellant Sati Bai Borkar, he came to know that the deceased is four months’ pregnant woman and she has not stated regarding any insertion of anything in her womb. He further referred the deceased to Government Hospital, Balod after seeing her health condition, however the appellants got their jeep ready and took the deceased to somewhere else. In his cross-examination he stated that he did not give treatment to the deceased Janaki Bai, he just examined her and he admitted that foam and blood was coming out from the mouth of the deceased and he did not tell anything in his police statement as the police did not ask him regarding insertion of any thing in womb of the deceased as stated by the appellant Sati Bai Borkar and this is the first time he is stating in his Court statement. 15. 15. PW-02 Jaleel Quereshi, PW-03 Amit Kumar, PW-04 Rupesh Kumar Soni have stated that they don’t know both the appellants. PW-02 Jaaleel Quereshi has stated that PW-03 Amit Kumar requested him to drop a patient from village Pathratola to Balod hospital as his jeep is out on booking. Thereafter, he agreed to drop the patient at hospital- Muskan Clinic Memories, the patient was accompanied by with one kid, two men and one woman. PW-02 Jaleel Quereshi, PW-03 Amit Kumar and PW-04 Rupesh Kumar Soni have not supported the prosecution case, the prosecution declared them hostile and cross- examined them, but they have denied all suggestions of the prosecution. 16. Upon comprehensive evaluation of the record, it is clear that there is no any single piece of evidence which proves that both the accused persons/appellants have done any act with an intent to cause miscarriage to the deceased Janaki Bai and during any such act, deceased Janaki Bai died with child. PW-01 Dr. A.V. Maheshwar has only stated that both the accused persons/appellants brought the deceased Janaki Bai in his clinic and he also admitted that what he stated in his examination-in-chief was not stated in his police statement. 17. It is quite evident that prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against the accused persons/appellants beyond reasonable doubt, but the learned trial Court without any clinching or reliable evidence convicted the appellants under Sections 314/109 of IPC and 314 of IPC, therefore, the findings recorded by learned trial Court are not according to the provisions of Sections 314/109 and 314 of IPC and the same are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 18. Ex consequenti, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.01.2007 is hereby set-aside and the appellants are acquitted of the aforesaid charge. 19. Keeping in view the provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023., the appellants are directed to furnish the personal bond a sum of Rs. 25,000/- each before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. 25,000/- each before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 20. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.