JUDGEMENT Anjana Prakash, J. 1. The Appellants are aggrieved with the judgment dated, 8th March, 1994 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 1987/39 of 1992, by which he has convicted the Appellants under Section 304A, 323 and 147 I.P.C. and awarded sentence of 2 years, 1 year and another 1 year, respectively. 2. The prosecution case, in short, is that on 25th July, 1986 at about 3 P.M. when the Informant was sitting at her door, Appellant Munni Baitha came there and threatened that he would cut palm tree, upon which she protested, but he caught her and slapped her three to four times and the other Accused persons also came there and assaulted her with lathies and committed theft. Due to this assault, the Informant lost her baby and, therefore, all the Accused persons had been charged Under Section 316, 323 and 147 I.P.C. 3. The prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses. Out of whom, PW. 1, PW. 2, PW. 3 and PW. 5 are material witnesses, whereas the PW. 4 is tendered and PW. 6 is formal and PW. 7 is the Investigating Officer and PW. 8 is the doctor. The doctor, who had examined PW. 3, found three bruises on her person and found that she complained of pain in the lower abdomen and there was bleeding from her vagina. 4. It has been submitted that PW. 1 and PW. 2 had conceded that abortion had taken place a month after the occurrence and, therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the lady had aborted on account of the assault by the Accused persons. The further submission is that no offence Under Section 304A I.P.C. is made out since neither the postmortem of the child was held nor is there any direct evidence with regard to causing of death of the child by the Accused persons and the entire case is based on an inference having been drawn by the Court below. 5. Considering such arguments as well as on going through the evidence on record and the judgment in question, I am inclined to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants. 5. Considering such arguments as well as on going through the evidence on record and the judgment in question, I am inclined to accept the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellants. In view of such, this appeal is allowed and the order of conviction and sentence passed against the Appellants on 8th March, 1994 by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Samastipur in Sessions Trial No. 52 of 1987/39 of 1992 is set aside. The Appellants are discharged from the liabilities of their respective bail bonds.