Hearsay and unproved co-accused statements cannot sustain conviction absent a prima facie conspiracy under evidence law.

Conviction for abortion-related offences and destruction of evidence was set aside because the prosecution relied on inadmissible and uncorroborated material. The court held that hostile witness testimony, statements under section 164 CrPC, and alleged extra-judicial statements could not, without reliable supporting proof, establish that the appellant performed the abortion or was directly involved in the victim's death. It further held that section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act applies only where a prima facie conspiracy is independently shown and the statements relied on are made during its subsistence; statements made after apprehension did not qualify. The appellant was acquitted for want of cogent admissible evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the appellant for offences under section 314 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 7(3) of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971 and section 201 of the Indian Penal Code could be sustained on the evidence on record, including statements attributed to co-accused and witnesses under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and whether such statements were admissible against the appellant under section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Analysis: The prosecution failed to establish by legally admissible evidence that the appellant performed the abortion or was otherwise directly connected with the death of the victim. The hostile witnesses from Jamaldaha did not support the prosecution version, and statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could not be treated as substantive evidence when the makers did not support them in court. The alleged statements of co-accused before villagers were only hearsay so far as the appellant was concerned. For section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to apply, there must first be reasonable ground to believe that a conspiracy existed, and the statement or act relied upon must be made during the subsistence of that conspiracy. No independent evidence established a prima facie conspiracy between the appellant and the other accused, and statements made after the accused were apprehended could not attract section 10. The alleged extra-judicial confession of co-accused also could not form the sole basis of conviction, particularly when it was retracted or not proved against the appellant by reliable evidence.

Conclusion: The conviction was not sustainable. The appellant was entitled to acquittal for want of cogent and admissible evidence.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside and the appeal was allowed, with the appellant acquitted of all charges.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction cannot rest on hearsay or uncorroborated statements of co-accused unless the prosecution first establishes a prima facie conspiracy and the statements fall within the scope of section 10 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof.

---