JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. Aggrieved of judgment dated 20.11.1990 and order of sentence of the even date passed in Sessions Trial No.20 of 1986, two criminal appeals viz. Criminal Appeal (DB) No.244 of 1990 (R) on behalf of accused-appellant Budhu Uraon @ Nathu Uraon and Criminal Appeal (DB) No.374 of 1999 on behalf of accused-appellants Jagmohan Uraon, Ganesh Uraon and Rupan Devi have been filed. 2. The learned A.P.P. states that he has received a communication from the officer-in-charge, Barkakana police station which indicates that the appellant No.1 in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.374 of 1999 namely, Jagmohan Uraon has died. Accordingly, appeal qua accused-appellant No.1 namely, Jagmohan Uraon in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.374 of 1999 stands abated. 3. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant namely, Sukhdeo Uraon, a First Information Report was registered on 06.12.1982 against Sanichar Uraon, Rupan Devi, Babuna Uraon, Ganesh Uraon, Dilip Uraon, Mahabir Uraon, Mahadev Uraon and Budhu Uraon. The fardbeyan of the informant was recorded at about 6.45 pm at Barkakana police station. The initial prosecution case as disclosed in the fardbeyan is, that accused Budhu Uraon, his wife Rupan Devi and Sanichar Uraon dragged Butan Devi out of her house and brought her to the house of Budhu Uraon where other accused persons joined them. They started accusing her as witch and assaulted her and took her all around the village and thereafter again brought her to the house of Budhu Uraon. There, the accused Budhu Uraon threw her down the ground and jumped over her and pressed her abdomen and chest with his feet, whereupon Butan Devi became unconscious. The accused Budhu Uraon and Sanichar Uraon took her back to her house where she succumbed to the injuries. Six accused persons including the present appellants were put on trial for offence punishable under Section 302/149 IPC. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove intention to kill the deceased Butan Devi. It is further contended that without establishing presence of other accused persons in the unlawful assembly with a common object to assault the deceased, the other accused persons also cannot be made liable for committing an offence with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 5. We have carefully examined the evidence brought before the trial court. It is further contended that without establishing presence of other accused persons in the unlawful assembly with a common object to assault the deceased, the other accused persons also cannot be made liable for committing an offence with the aid of Section 149 IPC. 5. We have carefully examined the evidence brought before the trial court. During the trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses, of which Baso Devi (P.W.1) and Mango Devi (P.W.3) claimed to be eyewitnesses to the occurrence. Baso Devi is the daughter of the deceased. Evidence of Baso Devi discloses that the accused Sanichar Uraon, Budhu Uraon and Rupan Devi are related to the deceased and there was no previous quarrel between them. In paragraph no.13 of her evidence, P.W.1 admits that there was love and affection between both families. She has alleged that accused Budhu Uraon jumped over the body of the Butan Devi and pressed her chest with his leg. In her evidence, P.W.3 however alleged that it was accused Babuna Uraon and Budhu Uraon who assaulted the deceased Butan Devi on her back and front body. The informant and the investigating officer of the case were not examined. It has come on record that in the case diary the investigating officer did not record the detailed statement of P.W.3 and the defence was seriously handicapped in cross-examining this witness. P.W.1 at the time of her examination in the court was married and her presence at the place of occurrence has been seriously disputed by the defence. The inconsistencies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses have been explained by the trial court by observing that the prosecution witnesses are all rustic illiterate women and few untrue statements and inconsistencies or discrepancies “or even contradictions” are bound to crop up in their evidence. Undoubtedly, the approach of the trial court was seriously faulted in law. The medical evidence discloses that there was fracture of left rib from second to the fifth and there was laceration of left lung of the deceased. It has also come on record that several persons from the village had assembled there and some of them had also assaulted the deceased. P.W.3 has categorically deposed that the deceased was assaulted on the back and front side of her body whereas, P.W.1 has named only Budhu Uraon as the one who jumped over the deceased and pressed her chest by leg. 6. P.W.3 has categorically deposed that the deceased was assaulted on the back and front side of her body whereas, P.W.1 has named only Budhu Uraon as the one who jumped over the deceased and pressed her chest by leg. 6. Rescanning of the prosecution evidence does not establish necessary mensrea in accused Budhu Uraon to cause death of Butan Devi, intentionally or knowingly. It is also not established that the accused Budhu Uraon intended to cause grievous hurt to the deceased. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the opinion that conviction of accused Budhu Uraon in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.244 of 1990 (R) is liable to be setaside. However, in view of the evidence laid against him, he is liable to be convicted for the offence punishable under Section 325 IPC. He is sentenced for the period already undergone with fine of Rs.20,000/-, to be paid to the family member of the deceased within three months. The conviction of other appellants namely, Ganesh Uraon and Rupan Devi in Criminal Appeal (DB) No.374 of 1999 does not call for any interference. However, sentence of six months imposed upon them is reduced to the period already undergone. 7. The instant criminal appeals stand allowed, in the aforesaid terms.