JUDGMENT : J. Das, J. - This appeal arises out of the conviction and sentence dated 21-12-1982 passed by Sri S.N. Das, Sessions Judge, Keonjhar convicting the Appellant u/s 313 of the Indian Penal Code in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 1982 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 7 years. 2. The prosecution Case briefly stated is that the Appellant Ghasinath Bentkar @ Singh is the elder brother of one Dukhabandhu Susa Dei (P.W. 1) is aged about 17 to 19 years. In the year 1981, the parents of Susa Dei went to Dhenkanal and stayed there for about 3 months in the house of elder sister of P.W. 1. During the absence of her parents Susa Dei (P.W. 1) was staying at home at village Binida with her younger brother. It is alleged that Dukhabandhu had illicit sexual relationship with P.W. 1 during the absence of her parents and as a result of that, P.W. 1 became pregnant. After the parents of P.W. 1 returned home, the mother of P.W. 1 (P.W.3) marked the pregnancy of P.W. 1. P.W. 1 had also told Dukhabandhu about her pregnancy and sought advice as to what she had to do. Dukhabandhu told Susa (P.W. 1) to come to his house and he also assured that he would keep her. On 30-12-1981 at about 7 A.M. in the morning, P.W. 1 went to the house of accused Ghasinath. Dukhabandhu was also staying in the same house. P.W. 1 sat on the front verandah awaiting for Dukhabandhu. After some time the Appellant Ghasinath and his father Dwari came out from the house. Ghasinath (Appellant) asked P.W. 1 as to why she was sitting and P.W. 1 answered that she was awaiting for the person who committed wrong to her. At this the Appellant abused P.W. 1 by saying as to whether her father constructed the house and saying so, the Appellant dragged P.W. 1 from the verandah and threw her on the ground with force. P.W. 1 has also alleged that in spite of the rough conduct of the Appellant, she did not leave and hence further ill-treatment showered on her and ultimately P.W. 1 left for her house. P.W. 1 fell unconscious in front of her house. P.W. 1 has also alleged that on account of assault, she had abortion. P.W. 1 has also alleged that in spite of the rough conduct of the Appellant, she did not leave and hence further ill-treatment showered on her and ultimately P.W. 1 left for her house. P.W. 1 fell unconscious in front of her house. P.W. 1 has also alleged that on account of assault, she had abortion. P.W. 1 was medically examined in course of investigation and after she lodged F.I.R., she was also given medical treatment. After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the Appellant Ghasinath and his father Dwari who stood their trial. Dwari Singh @ Bentkar was acquitted of the charge and the Appellant was convicted and sentenced as stated above. 3. The defence plea is one of denial. 4. The trial Court gave the finding that Susa Dei (P.W. 1) had abortion and the abortion was caused on account of assault by the Appellant and hence the Appellant voluntarily caused miscarriage of P.W. 1 without her consent. 5. The learned advocate for the Appellant argued that even if the entire prosecution case is assumed to be true, then also ingredients of the offence u/s 312, I.P.C. have not been established and hence no offence has been committed by the Appellant and the findings of the trial Court are incorrect. 6. The main witness of this case is Susa Dei (P.W. 1). She has stated that she had illicit sexual connection with Dukhabandhu and as a result of that she became pregnant and disclosed about that fact to Dukhabandhu, who assured to keep her and asked her to come to his house. In such circumstances, P.W. 1 has stated that she went to the house of Dukhabandhu who was staying jointly with his elder brother Ghasinath (Appellant) and father Dwari and set on the front verandah. After some time the Appellant Ghasinath and his father came out from the house. P.W. 1 then go on to say "Ghasinath asked me why I was sitting. When I said that I was sitting awaiting for the person who had committed wrong on me, Ghasinath abused me saying if my father had constructed that house to sit there and saying that he dragged me from the verandah and threw me down on the ground with force (KADHI DELA). When I said that I was sitting awaiting for the person who had committed wrong on me, Ghasinath abused me saying if my father had constructed that house to sit there and saying that he dragged me from the verandah and threw me down on the ground with force (KADHI DELA). I fell for some time feeling senseless." After making the above statement, P.W. 1 went on to say that she went to her house and before she could reached her house, she had abortion in front of her house. Again P.W. 1 stated that she sustained pain on account of assault by Ghasinath and abortion took place for that. 7. Gurucharan Singh (P.W. 5) has stated that he found that Susa (P.W. 1) was sitting in fornt of the verandah of the accused persons and at that time Gasinath and Dwari came out of their house and accused Ghasinath dragged Susa Dei from the verandah and threw her on the ground in a smashing manner. P.W. 5, however, does not speak regarding the pregnancy of Susa Dei. 8. According to P.W. 1 she had illicit sexual connection with Dukhabandhu. Neither Dukhabandhu has been examined in this case nor there is allegation against him. The statement of P.W. 1 has been cited verbatim in the preceding paragraphs and it is clear from that statement that P.W. 1 did not tell the Appellant that she was made pregnant by Dukhabandhu. She only stated "I was sitting awaiting for the person who had committed wrong to me. "From this statement no body can know that P.W. 1 was made pregnant by Dukhabandhu. Hence, there is nothing in the statement of P.W. 1 from which it can be said that the Appellant knew that P.W. 1 was pregnant. It is also seen that the other witness Gurucharan Singh (P.W. 5) has also not stated that P.W. 1 was pregnant. There is no other evidence in the case from which it can be said that the Appellant knew that P.W. 1 was pregnant and in spite of such knowledge, the Appellant dragged P.W. 1 and threw her on the ground. 9. There is no other evidence in the case from which it can be said that the Appellant knew that P.W. 1 was pregnant and in spite of such knowledge, the Appellant dragged P.W. 1 and threw her on the ground. 9. Section 312 of the Indian Penal Code is as follows: Section 312 Whoever voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry shall, if such miscarriage be not caused in good faith for the purpose of saving the life of the woman, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both; and, if the woman bequick with child, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. From the above section it is quite clear that unless a person voluntarily causes a woman with child to miscarry, he cannot be liable for causing miscarriage. 10. The term "Voluntarily" has been defined in Section 39 of the Indian Penal Code which is as follows: A person is said to cause an effect "voluntarily" when he causes it by means whereby he intended to cause it, or by means which, at the time of employing those means, he knew or had reason to believe to be likely to cause it. The word "voluntarily" is defined in relation to the causation of effects and not to the doing of acts from which those effects or result. Thus the word "voluntarily" has been given a peculiar meaning and differs widely from ordinary meaning. From the definition of the term "voluntarily" it is quite clear that the act of the man and the effect of that act must be connected as causa causans. The effect must be either intended of it must be probable result of the act. If a person has bona fide ignorance of the connection existing between the mere mechanical act and its consequence there is no liability for the hurtful consequence of an act. In this case the evidence as it stands does not in the least go to show that the Appellant knew that Susa Dei (P.W. 1) was pregnant. By simply dragging a woman and throwing her on the ground, no body would expect that there can be an abortion to the woman. In this case the evidence as it stands does not in the least go to show that the Appellant knew that Susa Dei (P.W. 1) was pregnant. By simply dragging a woman and throwing her on the ground, no body would expect that there can be an abortion to the woman. There is nothing to show that the Appellant knew about the pregnancy of P.W. 1 and it is also very clear that P.W. 1 did not tell the Appellant that she was pregnant. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Appellant by his act either, intended to cause miscarriage or that he knew or had reason to believe that on account of his act, the miscarriage was the likely effect. There is no evidence wherefrom it can be said that the Appellant knew that P.W. 1 was with, child. In such circumstances it cannot be said that the Appellant voluntarily caused P.W. 1 with the child to miscarry. Hence, the ingredients of offence u/s 312, I.P.C. is Dot established. So there cannot be any offence either u/s 312, I.P.C., or u/s 313, I.P.C. 12. Dr. Sohana Mohapatra (P.W. 2) examined Susa Dei (P.W. 1). The finding of P.W. 2 is that P.W. 1 had complete abortion within one week. P.W. 2 has further stated that on query by the Investigating Officer she had given her opinion in Ext-2 to the effect that it was not possible to say as to in what manner the abortion has taken place and what was the period of conception by the time of abortion. The statement of P.W. 2 goes to show that the cause of abortion is not proved. There is absolutely no reliable evidence establishing the fact that the abortion of P.W. 1 resulted on account of the alleged assault. Thus, it has not been established that the alleged assault and the abortion of P.W. 1 was connected as cause and effect and causa md causans. In such circumstances, the finding that as the Appellant dragged P.W. 1 and threw her on the ground the abortion of P.W. 1 took place must be held to have been based upon mere conjecture and not upon any legal and reliable evidence. 13. In the circumstances discussed above, the trial Court has misdirected itself and the finding is perverse. In such circumstances, the finding that as the Appellant dragged P.W. 1 and threw her on the ground the abortion of P.W. 1 took place must be held to have been based upon mere conjecture and not upon any legal and reliable evidence. 13. In the circumstances discussed above, the trial Court has misdirected itself and the finding is perverse. The circumstances of the case, which have been discussed above, do not prove the fact that the Appellant is in any way responsible for causing miscarriage and hence his conviction u/s 313, I.P.C. is neither legal nor proper. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellant are set aside. Appeal allowed. Final Result : Allowed