JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26-9-1995 passed by Third Additional Sessions Judge, Rewa in S.T. No. 124/1988, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 316 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- and in default to further suffer SI for 1 year. 2. The prosecution case, in short, may be stated as under: (i) Ramwati (who also died subsequently) was the wife of Ramdas (P.W. 5) and daughter-in-law of the first infonnant Kunware (P.W.4), who are residents of Village Tamra. At the relevant point of time, she was carrying a pregnancy of nearly 6 months. (ii) On 10-11-1986 at about 8 a.m., when she had gone along with Kunne (P.W.7), Manwati (P. W. 8), Baby (P. W. 9), Karnmu (P.W.11) and Momina picking Chana ki Bhaji (leaves of gram 'plants) to the field belonging to Rajendra Prasad, father of the appellant and situated nearly Village Jarha, the appellant came there and assaulted Ramwati with a lathi and one of the blows given by him landed on side of her womb, resulted in death of the unborn child. (iii) Ultimately, the fetus was delivered on 12-11-1986 at about 8 p.m. Thereafter, it was upon the report (Ex. P-2) lodged by the father-in-law Kunware (P.W. 4) on 13-11-1986 at 9.10 a.m. that a case under Section 316 of the IPC was registered against the appellant at P.S. Gurh. (iv) After inquest proceedings, dead body of the child was sent for post-mortem. Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Santosh Kumar (P. W. 1) opined that the fetus of nearly six months was born dead. Ramwati was also subjected to medical examination. However, Lady Doctor P. Dwivedi did not find any external injury on her body. (v) After due investigation, charge-sheet was submitted in the Court of ACJM, Rewa, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 3. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded false implication due to prevailing animosity on account ofPanchayat Election. 4. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all including the eye-witnesses to the occurrence namely Kunne (P. W. 7), Manwati (P. W. 8), Baby (P. W.9) and Kammu (P.W.11). No evidence was adduced by the defence. 3. The appellant denied the charge and pleaded false implication due to prevailing animosity on account ofPanchayat Election. 4. To bring home the charge, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses in all including the eye-witnesses to the occurrence namely Kunne (P. W. 7), Manwati (P. W. 8), Baby (P. W.9) and Kammu (P.W.11). No evidence was adduced by the defence. On consideration of the entire evidence, the learned Trial Judge, for the reasons recorded in the impugned judgment, proceeded to convict the appellant and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove. 5. Legality and propriety of the impugned conviction have been questioned primarily on the ground that there was no corroborative medical evidence to prove the alleged act of the appellant. However, the learned Panel Lawyer, while making reference to the incriminating pieces of evidence available on record, has contended that the conviction under challenge is well-merited. 6. Although, the evidence of Kunne (P.W.7), Manwati (P.W. 8), Baby (P.W.9) and Karnmu (P.W.11) named as the eye-witnesses in the FIR (Ex. P2), was consistent on the point that on the festive occasion of Deethvan, Ramwati had also gone to the filed for taking chana bhaji yet, it suffers from serious infirmities on the nature of assault allegedly made by the appellant. According to Kunne and Manwati, the sisters-in-law ofRamwati, the appellant had given 4 guchchas (thrusts) with a lathi on Ramwati's bakha (side of womb ) whereas Kammu categorically asserted that the appellant had struck a lathi blow on the womb itself. Autopsy Surgeon Dr. Santosh Kumar Pathak (P. W. 1) clearly admitted that he had not found any injury on the head fetus. Further, Dr. P. Dwivedi, who had the occasion to examine Ramwati on 13-11-1986 at 10.30 p.m., was not examined by the prosecution presumably in view of her negative opinion as to existence of any external injury on the person of Ramwati. 7. Thus, even though, the eye-witnesses to the incident denied the suggestion that Ramwati had fallen down, while running away along with them on arrival of the appellant in the field yet, its probability could not be ruled out in absence of corroborative medical opinion as to assault in question. 8. Section 316 punishes the offence against child in womb. 7. Thus, even though, the eye-witnesses to the incident denied the suggestion that Ramwati had fallen down, while running away along with them on arrival of the appellant in the field yet, its probability could not be ruled out in absence of corroborative medical opinion as to assault in question. 8. Section 316 punishes the offence against child in womb. If a person strikes a pregnant woman and thereby causes death of her quick unborn child, he would be guilty of the offence provided the blow was intended by him to cause woman's death or was one which he knew or had reason to believe to be like1yto cause it. The Illustration to Section reads : A, knowing that he is likely to cause the death of a pregnant woman, does an act which, if it caused the death of the woman, would amount to culpable homicide. The woman is injured, but does not die, but the death of an unborn quick child with which she is pregnant is thereby caused. A is guilty of the offence defined in this Section. 9. As explained in Jabbar Vs. State1:Unless the act is done against the mother with an intention or with a knowledge, which brings it within the purview of Section 299, it cannot constitute an offence under this Section merely because the death of a quick w1born child has resulted from an act against the mother. 10. However, Kunware (P.W. 4) was the only witness who had alleged that his daughter-in-law Ramkali, not able to make recovery, had died near months after the abortion. But, as indicated already, there was absolutely no medical evidence to establish the alleged cause of Ramwati's death. 11. To sum up, in absence of the evidence to prove all the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 316 of the' IPC, learned Trial Jud completely misdirected himself in holding the appellant guilty thereof. The up therefore, deserves acceptance. 12. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned conviction and consequent sentences passed against the appellant are hereby set aside. Instead he is acquitted of the charge. The fine amount, if deposited, be refunded to appellant. Appeal Allowe