mere fact that Ultra-sonography was conducted by Dr. Kamlesh Jinda, ipso-facto, does not establish that she had detected and disclosed the s*x of the foetus
It is a settled law that a case cannot be decided on mere Criminal presumptions unless the Statute states so. If there is legal presumption, the same can be drawn but the counsel for the petitioner is fair enough to concede that under the Statute, there is no legal presumption that foetus was of female and was aborted. Moreover, according to the case of the prosecution, abortion was done by respondent No.4 but no notice of motion has been issued by this Court qua respondent No.4 vide order dated 26.3.2008. It is not out of place to mention here that the complainant while reporting the matter to the authorities under the Act has not stated that it was a female foetus. The case of the prosecution, from the very beginning, was that Dr. Kamlesh Jindal has conducted Ultra- sound (Sonography). Admittedly,
