JUDGMENT & ORDER : This is an appeal, preferred under Section 378 Cr.P.C. by the State of Assam, against the judgment and order dated 25-06-2008, passed by the learned Assistant Sessions Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, in Sessions Case No. 66/2005, acquitting the accused-respondents of the charges under Sections 498(A)/313/34 of the IPC. 2. I have heard Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, for the appellant, State of Assam, and Mr. SC Biswas, learned counsel for accused-respondents. 3. I have scanned the evidence on record as well as the judgment passed by learned trial Court, which is impugned in this appeal. 4. Prosecution case, as it appears, is that the sessions case, in which the impugned judgment was passed, arose out of a complaint filed by the PW1/complainant before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cachar, Silchar. 5. On examination of the witnesses for the complainant, the learned Magistrate found grounds to proceed against the accused-respondents, under Sections 498A/313/34 IPC. Since Section 313 IPC is triable exclusively by the Court of Sessions, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar after observing necessary legal formalities. The learned Sessions Judge, Cachar, Silchar, made over the case for trial to learned Assistant Sessions Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar. 6. After exhausting the procedure, the learned Assistant Sessions Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar, framed formal charge against the accused-respondents, under Sections 498A/313/34 of the IPC, to which the accused-respondents, pleaded innocence. Hence, the trial proceeded before the learned Assistant Sessions Judge No. 1, Cachar, Silchar. During the course of trial, prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses and the defence examined 2 witnesses. The defence plea was of complete denial, in their statements, recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 7. On the basis of the charge and the evidence led by prosecution, this Court is required to decide the following points: (i) Whether the accused-respondents, in furtherance of their common intention, subjected the complainant/PW1 to cruelty on her failure to meet their demand for a television. (ii) Whether the accused-respondents caused miscarriage of the child of the complainant/ PW1 by forcefully administering medicine. 8. Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred the evidence of Medical Officer, Dr. Arun Paul Choudhury, examined as PW7. The evidence of PW7 makes it appear that the victim/PW1 was admitted in the Gynochology Department of Silchar Medical College Hospital, on 17-08-2002. 8. Mr. NJ Dutta, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has referred the evidence of Medical Officer, Dr. Arun Paul Choudhury, examined as PW7. The evidence of PW7 makes it appear that the victim/PW1 was admitted in the Gynochology Department of Silchar Medical College Hospital, on 17-08-2002. As per hospital record, at the time of her admission in the hospital, she was bleeding. On investigation by the doctor in the hospital, it was found to be a case of abortion. She was discharged from hospital on 22-08-2002. As per hospital record, marked as Ext.4, in connection with discharge, the gynosis was incomplete abortion. During his cross-examination, he referred to the Ext. A, a certificate, issued by Dr. KR Dey, who was working as Medical Officer under him in Silchar Medical College Hospital. Since he knew his handwriting and signature, the same was identified by him as Ext. A, wherein Ext. A(1) is the signature of aforesaid Dr. KR Dey. In Ext. A, the opinion of the doctor was that “it may be a natural occurrence.” 9. From such evidence of the doctor, it appears that the forced abortion, alleged in the instant case, was natural. 10. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Dutta, has also referred to the evidence of PW1, and has submitted that the evidence of PW1 is succinct enough to show that she was assaulted by the accused-respondents while she was carrying pregnancy. This occurrence of assault on the person of the complainant/PW1, as per the evidence on record, happened on 16-02-2008, and she was evidently hospitalised on 17-02-2008. But the medical evidence on record is found to be silent of any mark of assault on the person of the victim/PW1. It is definitely because of the fact that the doctor did not find any mark of violence or assault on the person of the PW1/victim/complainant, which negates the evidence of PW1/victim that she was assaulted by the accused-respondents. There is no other eye witness account on the alleged assault on the person of the victim/complainant/ PW1. The evidence on record also indicates that there used to be quarrel and differences between the accused-respondents and the complainant/PW1. None witnessed the occurrence of assault is a fact emerged from the evidence on record. 11. There is no other eye witness account on the alleged assault on the person of the victim/complainant/ PW1. The evidence on record also indicates that there used to be quarrel and differences between the accused-respondents and the complainant/PW1. None witnessed the occurrence of assault is a fact emerged from the evidence on record. 11. The evidence of PW1/complainant and the evidence of the doctor examined as PW7, read in combination, do not make it appear to be a case of causing miscarriage by the accused-respondents by assaulting her/complainant/PW1. 12. The learned trial Court also, in the judgment, while discussing the evidence of the witnesses, in details, recorded the finding that the prosecution failed to prove the case against the accused-respondents beyond all reasonable doubt. 13. On scrutiny of the judgment, particularly, the discussions on the evidence of the witnesses, examined by both sides, there does not appear any reason to interfere with the order of acquittal recorded by the learned trial Court. 14. In view of above, the appeal is dismissed. 15. Send down the LCR to the Court below with a copy of this judgment and order immediately.