Judgment I.P.Singh, J. 1. This appeal under sec. 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code) is directed against the judgment dated 30.1.1993 passed by Shri Sriprakash Rai, 4th Addl. Sessions Judge, Vaishali at Hajipur convicting the appellants under sec. 313 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each in default to further undergo imprisonment for six months each. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 4.12.1985 a station diary entry no. 68 was lodged at the police station. Another station diary entry no. 29 dated 2.1.1986 was also lodged there. On the basis of these two entries Bhagwanpur P.S. Case No.1 of 1986 was lodged. 3. The prosecution case, in short, is that the appellants Dipa Sah had kept the trunk of Palm tree in front of the informants house. The Sarpanch was called and it was decided that after getting the land measured the trunk will be removed. After the departure of the Sarpanch, appellant Dipa Sah and others started abusing the informant. The temper ran high and the appellants rushed to assault the informant. In the meantime, the injured who happens to be the wife of the informanj intervened to save her husband. The appeallants started assaulting her as a result of which she sustained injuries. At that time she was pregnant and assault on her resulted in the miscarriage. The police was informed and after necessary enquiry the appellants were committed to the court of session. They were tried by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge named above who convicted them ill the manner indicated above. 4. On behalf of the appellants it has seriously been contended that no miscarriage as alleged by the prosecution did ever take place. In this connection my attention has been drawn to Exhibit 5 which is the injury report of the Doctor who examined the wife of the informant at 5.45 P.M. on 4.12.1985. This shows that no injury was found on the abdomen. The Doctor also did not find any bleed ing taking place. In this connection a reference may be made to the evidence of the Doctor S.C. Jaisawal (P.W. 8). This shows that no injury was found on the abdomen. The Doctor also did not find any bleed ing taking place. In this connection a reference may be made to the evidence of the Doctor S.C. Jaisawal (P.W. 8). He has stated that on 4.12.1985 he had examined Sushila Devi the wife of the informant and had found only three superficial injuries on her person so much so that she was discharged from the hospital on 6.12.1985. He has further stated that at the time of admission in the Hospital she did not complain of any pain in the abdomen and no blood was coming out from her private part. No doubt he has stated that on 6.12.1985 Sushila complained of pain in the abdomen but she was not advised any pathological test. No pathological test report is on the record. Thus the medical evidence on this point is far from satisfactory, Ac against this the defence has examined D.W.1 Nagendra Choudhary to state that the injured Sushila Devi gave birth to a son and Ext.. A is the birth certificate of her son. Subsequently according to him the child died and Ext. A/1 is her death certificate. D.W.1 has been put to the test of the cross-examination but it has nowhere suggested to him that Exts. A and A/1 are forged and fabricate documents. On the strength of these documents the appellants have contended that actually no miscarriage has taken place. On the other hand Sushila Devi gave birth to a healthy child though subsequently he died as will appear fromExt. A/1. This completely goes against the case of the prosecution. 5. In this connection a reference may be made to the Fardbeyan (Ext. 2). It does not speak of any bleeding injury caused to Sushila Devi though in it has been admitted by the informant that there was previous enmity between the parties. P.W.4 is the husband of Sushila Devi. In his evidence he has stated that after the assault Sushila Devi got bleeding injury and the miscarriage had taken place immediately. He has further stated that the blood fell on the ground on the way from his house to the Hospital and he had stated this fact to the police which the Investigating Officer did not record. In his evidence he has stated that after the assault Sushila Devi got bleeding injury and the miscarriage had taken place immediately. He has further stated that the blood fell on the ground on the way from his house to the Hospital and he had stated this fact to the police which the Investigating Officer did not record. From the medical evidence on record it is clear that there was no bleeding at the time of her examination by the Doctor and no miscarriage had taken place at that time or even after that. Thus this evidence of P.W. 4 does not appear to be correct. Even P.W. 2, Deonandan Giri has stated that after assault the bleeding had started and abortion has taken place. However, he has admitted that in his statement during investigation he did not state this fact to the Investigating Officer. So far as P.W.1 is concerned he has,claimed to be an eye witness and has stated about the bleeding injuries and the miscarriage. He has also stated in the court that he had stated these facts during investigation to the Investigating Officer. P.W. 6 who is the Investigating Officer has, however, stated that P.W. 1 Jaipal Giri, did not make any such statement before him. Even P.W. 2 has admitted that he did not tell the Investigating Officer that Sushila Devi got bleeding injury on her person. 6. From the aforesaid discussions it is clear that the prosecution case has not been proved beyond all reasonable doubt on the basis of the evidence on record. The allegation of miscarriage or an offence under section 313 of the Indian Penal Code could not be proved by the prosecution. The alleged occurrence is said to have taken place in December 1985 which is more than 21 years ago. In any view of the matter the prosecution has completely failed to prove the charge against the appellants. 7. In the result this appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction of the learned court below is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge framed against them. They are directed to be set at liberty.