JUDGMENT Mr. A.N. Jindal, J.: - Initially, four accused namely Mehar Singh, Zora Singh, Pargat Singh and Mohan Singh were prosecuted for the offences under Sections 323/313/316 IPC for throwing the complainant Baljit Kaur, a pregnant lady on the floor and causing her abortion. Consequently, vide judgment dated 8.2.2000 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, three accused namely Mehar Singh, Zora Singh and Pargat Singh were convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months each under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC; rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs.1000/- each under Section 313 read with Section 34 IPC. It is pertinent to mention here that the accused Mohan Singh died during the pendency of the trial. 2. In nutshell, the allegations are that on 20.12.1986, at about 1/1.30 a.m. the accused persons in a drunken came to the house of Baljit Kaur complainant (herein referred as, ‘the complainant’) and started manhandling her. The complainant requested them not to do so as she was pregnant, but the accused did not hear her request, rather they pushed her on the floor, consequently, she started bleeding and ultimately, she had to face unwanted abortion. The motive behind the occurrence is that a civil dispute was going on between the parties regarding the land which was given to Baldev Singh husband of the complainant, out of love and affection by Inder Singh. The accused persons were out to dispossess Baldev Singh from the land . On 20.12.1986, the accused persons in connivance with the Station House Officer, Police Station Sherpur, foisted a false case against the husband of the complainant, her father, father-in-law and brother. 3. After recording the preliminary evidence, the accused were summoned to face trial. Accordingly, they were charged under Section 323/34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Thereafter, the complainant moved application for amending the charge which was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 5.7.1988. However, the revision preferred against the said order was allowed vide order dated 24.9.1988 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur and charge for the offence under Section 313 IPC. was also ordered to be framed against the accused. Since the offence under Section 313 IPC, is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. 4. was also ordered to be framed against the accused. Since the offence under Section 313 IPC, is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the case was committed to the court of Sessions. 4. The accused persons were charged under Section 323/313 read with Section 34 IPC, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. 5. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined Baljit Kaur (PW1), Mukhtiar Singh (PW2), Dr. Nirmal Rajput (PW3), Sadhu Singh (PW4) and Jangir Singh (PW5). 6. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded their false implication in the case. 7. The trial ended in conviction. 8. In order to prove the charge, the prosecution examined Baljit Kaur (PW1), Mukhtiar Singh (PW2) and Sadhu Singh (PW4). However, they could not withstand the test of cross examination and deposed in their cross-examination that they had already settled the long drawn civil litigation between them; they had no grouse against the petitioners; they had deposed against the accused in their examination-in-chief due to some misunderstanding. Actually she was not aborted. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that even if it is accepted that the parties have compromised that is why the witnesses did not support the prosecution case, the court should not have been so rigid not to accept the compromise and take a lenient view in the case. It has been further urged that on perusal of the statement of Dr. Nirmal Rajput (PW3) it could be seen that she does not state that if there was any injury indicating forcible abortion of Baljit Kaur. She has just stated that the injured had given the history of four months pregnancy with vaginal bleeding and he had removed the products of conception. He has not stated if Baljit Kaur suffered any such injury in the stomach which resulted into miscarriage. Thus, it appears that the miscarriage may be for any other reasons and the case was planted upon the accused due to the pendency of the civil litigation between the parties. 9. In any case, none of the witnesses appearing in the court has supported the prosecution case, therefore, the trial court should not have taken such a harsh view of the matter. 9. In any case, none of the witnesses appearing in the court has supported the prosecution case, therefore, the trial court should not have taken such a harsh view of the matter. The observations given by the court below lacks application of mind and non consideration of the material aspects of the case which has resulted into miscarriage of justice warranting interference by this Court. 10. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted, impugned judgment is set aside, the appellants are acquitted of the charges and they are directed to be set at liberty forthwith. Bail bonds and surety bonds furnished by them stand discharged. Fine, if any deposited by them, be refunded. —————————