This appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., is preferred against the judgment and order, dated 06-08-2008, passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, in Sessions Case No. 21 of 2006, convicting the accused-appellant, under Sections 313 and 498(A) of the IPC and sentencing him, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, to suffer simple imprisonment for 1 year under Section 313 IPC and also sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years under Section 498(A) IPC.

2. I have heard Mr. MA Sheikh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of accused-appellant. I have also heard Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the state respondent.

3. The fact of the case is that, the informant Rashida Begum, got married with the accused-appellant Abdus Samad on 11.10.2001, and started conjugal life with accused-appellant in his house. After some days of their marriage, her accused-appellant husband, on being instigated by co-accused Mansur Ali and Manjira Khatun, demanded an amount of Rs. 10,000/- from her to be brought from her elder brother for the purpose of repairing of his shop-house. Due to her failure to meet such demand, the accused persons tortured her physically, and also terminated the child in her womb at Dhubri Civil Hospital without her consent, and threatening her further that she would not be allowed to give birth to a child, until the demand is met. They also continued to demand an amount of Rs. 10,000/-, and simultaneously subjected her to physical torture. The informant conceived for the second time. The accused appellant threatened her that they would cause miscarriage of the child in her womb. Then, she somehow managed to collect Rs. 2,500/- from her elder brother and gave it to the accused-appellant husband, but they kept on insisting for the remaining amount of Rs. 7,500/-. She was also told that she would not be allowed to stay in his house unless she could bring the amount. The accused appellant administered some tablets to her, following which, she miscarried. She also sustained injuries due to the assault on her person by the accused appellant. It is further alleged that she was administered the tablet to get relief from the injuries she sustained, but she developed pain after taking the tablet and then she suffered the miscarriage. On 25.5.2003, she was driven out from the house of the accused-appellant following her failure to meet the demand for remaining amount of Rs. 7,500/-. She took refuge in the night at the house of her brother at Gauripur, and on the next day, she went to her parental home. She was waiting for the accused to come to take her back which the accused-appellant did not do. The informant issued legal notice to her accused-appellant husband to take her back which was not responded to by the accused appellant.

4. With the above facts, the informant lodged a complaint before the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, who in turn, forwarded the same to the concerned police station, which registered a case, being No. 138/2003 under Section 498(A) IPC, investigated into it, and finally, submitted charge-sheet against the accused-appellant under Section 498(A) IPC.

5. The learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Dhubri, tried the case, and at the stage of judgment, as he found materials against the accused-appellant under Section 313 IPC also, he committed the case to the learned court of Sessions Judge, Dhubri.

6. On receipt of the case by the learned Sessions Judge, Dhubri, and on appearance of the accused-appellant, learned Sessions Judge, framed a formal charge against him under Sections 313/498(A) IPC, to which he pleaded innocence.

7. In this case, to bring home the charge against the accused appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 9 (nine) witnesses including the Investigating Police Officer. The defence cross-examined the prosecution witness.

8. In his statement, recorded under Section 313 C