Details - Dhemaji

DISTRICT: - DHEMAJI.
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGITRATE, FIRST CLASS:::DHEMAJI.
PRESENT: - MR. AJOY KR. BASUMATARY; AJS.
B. Sc.(Hons), B.A.(c), LL.B.
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 1 ST CLASS
DHEMAJI.
GR. Case No. 855/2008(DMJ); U/S-341/323/325/34 IPC
PRC No.- Nil, in connection with DMJ. P/S.C/No. 405/08.
The State Of Assam
-V-
Smti. Doli Arandhara.
W/O- Shri Purnanda Arandhara.
R/O-Vill. Bheparagaon.
P/S- & Dist.- Dhemaji.
-------------Accused Person.
ADVCATE FOR THE PROSECUTION:- Mr. M. Baruah,
Ld. P. P. Assam.
ADVOCATE FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON:- Mr. Rabot Ch. Gohain.
Ld. Advocate, DMJ.B.A.
Date Of Evidence- 05-09-09, 15-07-10, 22-11-10, 18-01-11,
25-02-11, 10-05-11, 07-07-11 & 04-08-11.
Date Of Argument-15-12-11 & 22-02-12.
Date Of Judgment- 22-02-2012
Date of Judgment delivered: 22-02-2012.
J – U – D – G – M – E – N – T
1) The accused person stands charged for the offences of Section-
341/323/325/34 IPC, in connection with DMJ. P/S. Case No.-405/08, upon
the Ejahar of Smt. Julie Baruah, W/O-Shri Apurba Baruah, R/O-Bhehpora,
P.S. & Dist.-Dhemaji.

It also pertinent to mention that the accused person had also lodged an
ejahar, being a victim/injured of the incidence at P/S-Dhemaji on 19-09-
2008 itself against the complainant’s husband/Shri Apurba Baruah and the
same was also registered, Vide-GR No.852/08(DMJ), U/S-
457/427/323/354/506 IPC for the same incidence. This case too is pending
in my court.
2) The Prosecution story, in brief is like that the complainant had lodged
an ejahar on 19-09-2008 at Dhemaji-P/S stating inter alia that the accused
and the son of the accused/Shri. J. A. (Juvenile-in conflict with law-- herein
after, instead of using the word as ‘accused’ for him) had assaulted her
husband/Apurba Baruah. On 18-09-08 at about 10pm, her husband’s car
stopped in front of the house of the accused while returning back home,
due to low charge of the battery of his car. Then the complainant’s husband
went to the house of the accused to ask for help in pushing the car. The
accused along with her son/juvenile in-conflict with law suddenly attacked
the complainant’s husband with a rod and ‘dao’. Shri Apurba Barauh (‘the
victim’—herein after) shouted for help and he got rescued only when the
neighboring people intervened. The victim sustained injuries on his head
and hand; his left hand became fractured and he got treated at Dhemaji
Civil Hospital at 3 am on 19-09-08. Later on, he got further treatment at
Care Multi Specialist Clinic/Dhemaji and Assam Medical
Hospital/Dibrugarh for his injuries.
3) The FIR was registered U/S-342/326/34 IPC against the FIR named
accused and the juvenile in-conflict with law and accordingly the police
investigated into the case and after their usual investigation submitted the
Charge sheet, U/S-341/323/325/34 IPC on 24-12-08 only for necessary
trial against the FIR named accused persons. The then Ld. CJM had
accepted the Charge-sheet and taken cognizance on the offences of
Section-341/323/325/34 I.P.C of the case. Thereafter, the case record
was split up for the Juvenile in-conflict with-law on 28-08-2011 by the
then Ld. Trial Magistrate and accordingly sent the case to the Juvenile

Justice Board/ Dhemaji for holding necessary inquiry against the
Juvenile in-conflict with law/son of the accused.
Then subsequently, I received this case record on being transferred
from the then Trial Court of Md. M. H. Borbhuyan, Ld. J.M.F.C. Dhemaji
at argument/Judgment stage for disposal on 19-09-2011 only.
5) NOW, the Points for determination:-
a) Whether the accused along with her son/juvenile in-conflict with law
had in furtherance of their common intention wrongfully restrained
Shri Apurba Baruah from proceeding towards any direction in which
he had a right to proceed on 18-09-2008 on the way at Bhehparagaon
under P/S-Dhemaji.
4) The necessary copies and relevant documents of the case were
furnished to the accused person on 07-08-2009 as per requisite of Section-
207 Cr. P. C. by On finding a prima-facie case against the accused on the
offences of Section-341/323/325/34 IPC, the then Ld. Trial Magistrate had
explained and read over the particulars of the aforesaid offences of the case
to the accused and framed formal charges U/S-341/323/325/34 IPC, to
which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. Then the
prosecution side was directed to lead their evidences in the case.
b) Whether the accused person along with the juvenile in-conflict with
law, in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily grievously
injured Shri Apurba Baruah on 18-09-2008 at Bhehparagaon under
P/S-DMJ.
-ORc)
Whether the accused person along with the juvenile in-conflict with
law, in furtherance of their common intention voluntarily hurt Shri
Apurba Baruah on 18-09-2008 at about 10pm at Bhehparagaon.
6) DISCUSSION, REASONS AND DECISION THEREOF:-

To prove its case the prosecution side has examined a total of Eight (08)
following Prosecution Witnesses (PWs’ in short herein after)::
Viz;- i) PW1-------Shri Apurba Kr. Baruah/the victim,
ii) PW2------Smti. Julie Baruah/the complainant,
iii) PW3------Shri Kan Singh Shekhawat,
iv) PW4-------Shri Shubhan Gogoi,
v) PW5--------Dr. Jamadagni Upadhaya,
vi) PW6-------Shri Binod Kr. Gogoi,
vii) PW7-------Shri Purna Kanta Gogoi and
viii) PW8------I.O-Shri Mosco Saikia.
The Exhibited documents in the case are as follows:-
a) Ex. No. 1 to 3---Advise Slip of Doctor::DMJ. Civil Hospital,
b) Ex. No. 4---------Dibrugarh: A.M.C.H. referred certificate,
Issued by M/O of Care Multi Special Clinic, Dhemaji.
c) Ex. No. 5--------Stool Report of the victim: Care Multi Spl. Clinic.
Dtd: 22-09-2008.
d) Ex. No. 6--------Discharge slip: Care M. Spl. C. dated: 26-09-2008.
e) Ex. No. 7 to 10--Prescription Advise slips:AMC Hospital::Dibrugarh
f) Ex. No.11--------Radiology report::CT/580/08::::AMCH::Dibrugarh,
g) Ex. No. 12-14----X-ray report of the victim:::AMCH::Dibrugarh,
h) Ex. No.15---------Advise/Prescription slip of doctor,
Medi-care Diagnostics & Hospital dated:---nil.
i) Ex. No.16-18-----Injury Photo copies of the victim,
j) Ex. No.19---------Govt. Lat Gaonbura Certificate, dtd: 04-02-2009,
k) Ex. No.20---------Bio-data of the victim, dtd: 19-11-2008,
l) Ex. No.21---------District-DMJ. Agril. Officer issued certificate,
Dated: 18-11-2008,
m) Ex. No.22(1-3)---Letter issued by Dist. Agri. Officer/DMJ
issued to the Agril. Dev. Officer(all)/Butikur to
attend the meetings as per schedules of EX.22(2-3) sheets.
n) Ex. No.23----------FIR, dated: 23-11-2010,
o) Ex. No.24---------Medical Injury Report, dated: 19-09-2008,
p) Ex. No.25------Sketch Map of the Place of occurrence, dtd:10-10-08,

q) Ex. No.26----Charge-sheet, dated: 31-10-2008.
7) The statement of the accused person had also been examined U/S-313
Cr. P. C. where she totally denied her involvement in the alleged incident
of the case. However, the accused person had declined to adduce any
evidence in her defence.
8) I have heard Mrs. B. D. Bhuyan, Ld. Addl. P. P. on behalf of the State
and Ld. Counsel, Shri R. Ch. Gohain appearing for the accused at length.
Ld. Prosecution counsel has submitted that the prosecution witnesses of the
case supported the case and the exhibited medical reports tell the real story
of the case. The victim was restrained in front of the house of the accused
by the accused persons when he was returning back to his house after
attending a RPRS programme meeting. The PW3 and PW4 are the
independent eye-witnesses of the case. The accused persons dragged the
victim inside their house and later on the victim was rescued when his
family members reached the spot, after hearing shouts of the victim from
the front of the house of the accused. The victim sustained serious injuries
on his head, ear and left hand; his left hand ulna bone became fractured in
the incident. PW3 was there with the victim, he had seen the whole incident
i.e. how the accused persons had restrained and assaulted the victim. The
accused had assaulted with a khamti dao from the blunt side and her son
assaulted the victim with an iron rod. The medical reports show that the
grievous injury along with simple other injuries were caused by a blunt
weapon. The case had been already split up for the juvenile in-conflict and
sent to the J. J. B.. The present case is pending against the accused only.
Thus she submitted that the accused person should be punished in
accordance with law.
9) On the other hand, Ld. defence counsel argued that this case is a
completely baseless and false case against the accused. The so- called
victim’s wife had filed this case in order to rescue her husband/victim from
the liabilities/punishment of the cross case only. The complainant herself

failed to clarify who had written the ejahar. In the FIR the complainant had
written that the incident took place when her husband went to the house of
the accused seeking help to start his car. The so called victim was neither
assaulted by the accused nor rescued by any other person as he had fled
away from the spot of the incident. The so called claimed independent
eyewitness PW3 and PW4, are also not independent witnesses at all. They
did not see that incident since they too did not come to the rescue of the
victim. The so called victim was not examined under police requisition.
The M/O. (PW5) did not mention the P/S case no. in his report. Even the
Police had not seized any article, as mentioned by the complainant or the
victim.
The so called victim of this case is a convicted person of GR Case no.
895/09, which was filed by the accused. He had also submitted a certified
copy of the judgment of the case. This clearly shows that the so called
victim is a litigating person. Therefore the victim’s case should not be
treated seriously and accordingly he claimed acquittal for the accused
person.
10) Now after hearing both the sides and carefully going through the
records, I have discussed the above mentioned points categorically with
reasons for decision hereof as follows:-
Now coming for Point No::(a) determination:- There were two cases
arising out of the same incidence on 19-09-2008 at night between the
parties. Therefore, it requires careful appreciation of all the evidences in the
cases. The whole content of the FIR/Ex.23 of the informant, is as follows-
“To,
The Officer-in charge, Dhemaji- P/S.
Dated: 19-09-2008.
Informant::- Smti. Julie Baruah.
W/O- xxxxx
R/O-xxxxx
Mouza-xxx & P/S-xxx
Opposite Party:: 1) Shri Junara Arandhara.
S/O-xxxxx
2) Smti. Doli Arandhara.
W/O-xxxxx

Sir,
xxxxxx------------------on 18-09-2008 at about 10pm when the informant’s husband was
returning back to his house, his vehicle stopped due to low charge of the battery on the way, in front of
the house of the opposite party. The informant’s husband went to the house of the opposite party
asking for help in pushing his vehicle to get it started. When the informant’s husband asked for help
from the opposite party, they took the informant’s husband inside their house and confined him. Then
they assaulted him with a ‘dao’ and injured his head seriously. When the informant’s husband
shouted for help, he was rescued from inside the house of the opposite party by the neighbouring
people. Now, condition of the injured is serious. The witnesses will prove the incident. The informant
is going through a lot of pain and suffering due to the incident.
Therefore
--------------------------------------------------------
xxxxx-- take necessary action in accordance as per law.
Yours faithfully-
Sd/-(Smti. Juli
Baruah.)
W/O-xxxxxxxxxx ”
In the FIR/Ex.-23, the complainant had mentioned that the incident
took place when the victim went to the house of the accused to ask for help
to push his car. Whereas the PW1/victim during his evidences stated that he
was restrained on the road by the accused person and the accused and her
son caught on the collar of his shirt and pulled him. When he tried to resist
the accused persons, the juvenile in-conflict with law/son of the accused hit
the victim with a rod from the backside. And the accused person also hit
him with a ‘khamti dao’ due to which he sustained injuries.
11) PW2/complainant deposed that she reached the spot of the incident
after hearing the shouts of her husband/victim. She saw her husband in the
compound/‘Paduli’ of the house of the accused person.
During cross examination, she admitted that she did not see the accused
and the Juvenile in-conflict with law dragging her husband. Thus the
version of the victim had not supported and corroborated by the
evidences of PW2 and Exhibit No.23/FIR.
12) At first, it is to be seen that the victim was going from where to
where and why. Secondly, if he was proceeding in a particular direction,
then how did the accused person restrain the victim?

The time of the incident is stated as 10pm by the informant. The
victim/PW1 has stated that when he was returning home after attending a
meeting, his car broke down in front of the house of the accused person. If
his car had really broke down then there should have been an MVI
report/mechanical report of the same. The prosecution did not produce
any evidence regarding such claim. When, how and who had taken the
vehicle from the spot, also is not stated by the prosecution side.
The time of the incident is also to some extent doubtful, because the
victim sustained injuries on scalp and on his hand and on the testimonies of
PW1 & PW2 revealed that there was bleeding from the injury. The victim
was first medically examined at about 3am only. However it does not take
05 hrs to go from the place of occurrence to the Dhemaji Civil Hospital.
And if such a long time was required, then perhaps the victim was not in a
moveable and talk able condition and he would definitely have lost huge
amount of blood in case of such late medical examination. However the
M.O. (PW6) revealed that the victim was in movable and talk able
condition at the time of examination.
In the cross case, the time of the occurrence is mentioned as about 12
O’clock midnight and the place of the occurrence is at the house of the
accused. Here in the present case, the complainant had seen the victim in
the compound of the accused and in the FIR also, it is mentioned that her
husband had gone to ask for help to the house of the accused. Thus, for
having such contradictions and reasons, I am of the view that the time of
the incident must be above 10 pm. Now it is hard for me to believe that
the accused person, being a lady would wait to commit any crime against
the healthy person as the victim, who was there on the road along with
other two male persons, during late night. Thus I find non corroborative
evidences in the prosecution story.
13) The victim has stated during cross examination, that he was aware of
the fact that the husband of the accused used to stay outside due to his
service and the accused used to stay alone in the house with her minor
children.

From both the cases, it reveals that both the parties had some previous
enmity. In such a situation, why the victim went or how he reached the
house of the accused at such late hour of the night, in the absence of the
husband of the accused, is not clear. The victim and complainant had
definitely suppressed some real facts of the case. Therefore the evidence of
the victim is not fully reliable, cogent and has no truth worthiness.
14) PW3 is a supply contractor, in the Department of the victim. He used
to frequently roam and stay with the victim and this he revealed in his cross
examination. He is not independent witness of the case as such. He deposed
that he was there with the victim in the car. The victim had left him in the
car, saying that he would bring some people to push and start the car. Then
he saw the victim being assaulted by the accused person and her son from
the car. Then the victim shouted saying “muk marile” and the accused and
her son dragged the victim inside their house. However he did not go to
the place of incidence. Then he saw the complainant along with another
lady come to the spot. Thereafter he left the place and went to his house.
Form the evidence of PW3; it is not clear where the victim was going to
call people from. However, also whether the incidence occurred on the road
or at home is not clear. PW3 during cross examination has stated that he
did not state before the police that the victim was assaulted by the accused
person and the son of the accused. PW3 has stated that the incident was
also seen by PW4.
The version of PW3 is highly doubtful as it was seen that PW3 was a
mute spectator of the crime and quietly left the place instead of calling
people to help the victim. If the victim had been really assaulted for no
fault of his then definitely PW3 would have called someone for help.
15) PW4’s house shares the boundary with that of the accused and the
complainant. On the date of the incidence at about 9-9.30pm, he saw the
victim’s car when it broke down. Then PW4 along with the victim and
PW3 pushed the car but they failed to start the car. Then the victim went to
his house to call someone for help leaving PW3 and PW4 in the car.

Meanwhile PW4 went back home as his home which was nearby. Then
suddenly he heard the shouts of the victim saying “Doli- muk marile oye”
from the front of the house of the accused. PW4 had seen the victim being
dragged away by the accused. However PW4 also did not go near the
victim to help him. Then the complainant and the victim’s family members
went to help the victim. During cross examination he has stated that he
could have helped the victim if he had wished to do so. I also find the
versions of PW3 and PW4 hard to believe because they did not go to the
place of occurrence to help the victim in spite of hearing shouts for help
from the victim and watched him being assaulted and dragged away. PW2
had reached the place of incident first. She did not even recognize her
husband initially from a distance and after only going nearer, she saw her
husband being assaulted and she did not see the victim dragged away by
the accused and the juvenile in-conflict with law. Her statement also
contradicts the statement of PW3 and PW4 stating that they clearly saw the
victim being assaulted from a far of distance. Therefore the prosecution
story does not corroborated as whole in chain with the statement of the
prosecution witnesses. I am of the view that the Prosecution witnesses have
exaggerated their versions and definitely they had suppressed some facts of
the incidence.
16) On the other hand, during the examination of the accused U/S-313 Cr.
P. C. she has totally denied her involvement in the alleged offences of the
case. She has stated that the prosecution witnesses had stated against her
falsely in the case. She deposed that the victim had used dirty ballad words
on her on the night of the incident, damaged her bamboo fencing
gate/‘japoona’ and entered into her house by breaking her door open and
assaulted her and fled away from there. The victim while fleeing had
accidently left one of his shoes in the house of the accused and he might
also fell down on the ground.
17) The PW1, PW3 and PW4 have deposed that the accused persons
dragged the victim into their house after assaulting him; it is not believable

ecause in my view at such late night, they would not drag him at their
house, that too in the absence the husband of the accused. The victim was
also not became unconscious at that moment so why they would call more
risk to their way. Finding of a shoe in the house of the accused revealed
another story. I am of the view that the victim had gone to the house of the
accused at night and then the incidence took place thereof.
18) Above all, the PW2/complainant could not even state who had written
the FIR but she admitted that Exhibit 23(1) is her signature. The FIR was
written in Assamese vernacular and there is no doubt that the informant is
literate person since her signature in the FIR was also written in Assamese
vernacular. Therefore the prosecution story to some extent is doubtful for
having such contradictions of the complainant’s version and Ex.23/FIR.
The prosecution has also failed to adduce the evidences of the scriber of the
FIR.
19) The victim has stated that the complainant/his wife had filed this case
on the very next day of the incident. The M/O/PW5 has stated that he
examined the victim on 19-09-2008 at 3am on police requisition and he
found the victim in movable and talk able condition at the time of
examination. The FIR lodged at 10 am on the next date of the incident. I
don’t think that during such a period, FIR was lodged without getting real
story from the month of the victim or without knowledge of the victim too.
20) PW5 to PW7 are the doctors, who were examined the victim and PW8
is the I/O. They are formal witnesses only. Thus, I have no option but to
believe that the incident took place at the house/compound of the accused.
The FIR is not a sole substantive piece of evidence, but it can be used as a
piece of corroborative evidence with other evidences available with the
record and accordingly to reach out into a decision as to whether such
asserted facts had taken place or not. In the present case, however, I don’t
find any proof that the victim was wrongfully restrained by the accused
when he was going to his house to call some persons to push and to get the

car started. The prosecution has failed to prove the charged offence of
Section-341 of IPC of the case against the accused. The point has been
decided in negative accordingly for the aforesaid discussed reasons.
21) Now coming to next the point no. (b) & (c):- I have discussed
both the points together, as to find out if any one of the offences of the
points had been committed, then which one:-
PW1 has stated that the accused had dragged him to her house and
beaten him. The Juvenile in-conflict with law hit him with a rod like
substance from the backside of his head, eye, ear, hand and leg and the
accused with a ‘khamti dao’ hit him several times all over his body due to
which he sustained severe injury. He got 18 stitches from head to ear. His
wife and his sister-in-law rescued him from inside the house of the accused
on the night of the incidence. Then he was brought to Dhemaji-P/S and he
got medical treatment at Dhemaji Civil Hospital at first and then at Care
Nursing home at Dhemaji where he was admitted for 8 days. Thereafter he
was again referred to Assam Medical Hospital for further treatment, where
he was admitted for 4(four) days. The Material Exhibit 1/T-shirt, Material
Exhibit-2/black long pant, Material Exhibit 3/coffee colored ganjee,
Material Exhibit 4/dao with handle about 01 feet 04 inches long, Exhibit-1
-to- 22/some personal medical examination reports of the victim of his
examinations by doctors of various dates of immediate post-period of the
incident, produced by him as a proof of his treatment of the various
hospitals.
22) PW2 has stated that she had recovered the victim from the house of
the accused in an injured condition. She rushed to the place of incidence
after hearing hue and cries from her husband. She had supported the
versions of the victim.
23) PW3 and PW4 had not seen the injuries in the place of occurrence, but
one had seen later on at the Dhemaji hospital and another one had seen
after few days of the incident. PW4 had also seen blood on the ground

outside the house. They had also supported the versions of the victim that
he sustained some injuries.
24) Now it is clear that the victim was injured but how he was injured is
to be seen. Therefore, I have gone carefully through the exhibited medical
examination reports and evidences of the Medical Officers’. PW5 has
clearly stated that on 19-09-08 at about 3 am on police requisition, he
examined the victim on police escort by AHG: Babul Nath and found the
following injuries.
1. Lacerated injury on vault of the scalp about 2” x ½” x ¼” in size.
2. Lacerated injury on vault of the scalp about 1” x ½” x ½ ” in size.
3. Lacerated injury on vault of the scalp about ½ ” x ¼ ” x ¼” in size.
4. Fracture ulner bone of the left hand with swelling.
The injured was advised S. O. P. D. (Surgical Out Patient Department) by
him. According to him the injury no.1, 2 and 3 are simple, recent in nature
and were caused by blunt weapon. Injury No.4 is grievous, recent and
caused by blunt object. Such type of injury might be caused in an accident
or if the person falls from a height. Exhibit no. 24 is his report and Exhibit
4(1) is his signature. During his cross examination he stated that the
patient could move and talk at the time of medical examination. At that
time of his examining the P/S No. was not given to him.
25) PW6/M.O has also stated that he examined the victim on 23-09-08
and he prescribed some medicines to him and he suggested to the victim to
take rest for one month. He has stated that such injury might be caused due
to assault or due to falling on some object. According to him the injury was
simple in nature and caused by blunt object. Exhibit No. 2 and Ex. No. 3
are his reports and Exhibit-2(1) and Ex. No. 3(1) are his signatures.
26) PW7 has also stated similarly as PW6. He was the visiting Surgeon of
Care Multi Special Clinic, Dhemaji. On 19-09-08 as on being referred by
PW6, he examined the victim and found multiple injuries in the scalp, and
left ear and commutated fracture on the left ulna. He referred the patient

to AMC: Dibrugarh. Exhibit-4 is his report and Exhibit-4(1) is his
signature. During his cross examination he confirmed that he did not state
before the police that the patient sustained simple injury caused by blunt
weapon. Thus the medical expertise evidences shows that the victim
sustained simple and also some grievous injury caused by some blunt
object or weapon.
27) The PW1 and PW2 have stated that the juvenile in-conflict with law
had assaulted the victim with an iron rod like substance and the accused
assaulted the victim with a ‘khamti dao’. But the M.O.s’ did not find any
injury caused by a sharp object like the ‘khamti dao’ as such.
28) PW8 has stated that on 19-09-08 he was posted at Dhemaji Thana as
town S. I. On that day the complainant lodged an ejahar and the same was
registered vide-DMJ. PS Case 405/08 U/S-342/326/34 IPC and endorsed
him for investigation. He took the depositions of the complainant and also
met the accused at Care Nursing Home. He did not see the injury as the
victim was lying on the bed. However from S.I police Shri. Rudra
Hazarika, he got information that on the date of the incident both the
victim and the accused were brought to the P/S in injured condition
and both got medically treated on police requisition. He stated that Dr.
Purna Kanta Baruah (PW7) had stated that the injury of the victim was
simple and caused by blunt object. Thus, I am the view that the victim was
examined on the police requisition, since the victim was escorted by on
AHG/Babul Nath. The I/O also confirmed the same, that both the accused
and the victim got medical treatment on police requisition.
Therefore he had submitted CS U/S-341/323/34 IPC. He did not seize
any article from the place of occurrence for this case, but he drew up the
sketch map of the place of occurrence. Exhibit-25 is the C/S and Exhibit-26
is the sketch map and Exhibit-25(1) and Ex. No. 26(1) are his signatures.
Going through the Exhibit-26/Charge-sheet and the Order dated 24-12-
08, passed by the then Ld. CJM, I have found that the I/O had submitted
C/S U/S-341/323/325/34 IPC. The C/S also has been overwritten at the

Sections of the offences portion. Why the I/O has deposed that the C/S was
submitted U/S-341/323/34 IPC without refreshing his memory is very
confusing.
However, from the evidences of M.O.s’, I/O and the Ex-1-to 17
documents, it is clear that on the date of the incident the victim had
sustained simple and also grievous injuries in the incident.
29) From the cross case records and the evidences of I/O, it is also
revealed that the accused also got injured in the incidence and the incidence
took place at the house of the accused. The victim got his injury in the
house of the accused, the versions of the victim and Exhibit No.23/FIR
have corroborated with the other prosecution witnesses. In these regard his
injury also supported the medical reports. The accused had failed to show
exactly how the victim sustained his injury, whereas the incident took
place in her house. The victim had very specifically stated that
juvenile-in conflict with law had assaulted him with rod and the injury
no.4/hand revealed that was grievous one. On such evidences of the
records, I am of the view that the juvenile in conflict with law assaulted
the victim in furtherance of their common objective with the accused.
Thus, I have found sufficient evidences, to draw a presumption that the
accused had caused the offences of grievous injury with her son; U/S-114
Indian Evidences Act. In such a situation, the Onus of proof is shifted and
lies upon the accused that she had not committed the alleged offence of the
case. The accused had failed to demolish the evidences of the prosecution
side and also had not adduced any evidence in his defence.
30) The accused has stated (U/s-313 Cr. P. C.) that the victim had used
dirty ballad words on her on the night of the incident and also damaged her
bamboo fencing gate/‘japona’. The victim/accused of the cross case entered
into her house by breaking her door open and assaulted her and fled away
from there. So, it is very clear that the incident could have taken place on
grave and sudden provocation by the victim himself. The victim is the first
aggressor of the incident of the case. On the cross case, the victim being

the accused held guilty u/s-457/323 IPC. Hence, she can’t be liable for this
charged offence. Thus, the accused cannot punished for the Charged
offence of Sectioon-323/325 IPC however, she can be well punished for
some lesser offence of Section-335 IPC:- that is punishment for voluntarily
causing grievous hurt on provocation, in accordance of Section-222(2) Cr.
P. C..
The Section-222(2) of Cr. P. C. Illustrations-(b): is very clear- the
accused is can be punished U/S-335 IPC here in the case, though she was
not charged with that section of offence. Thus, I find the accused guilty u/s-
335 IPC.
31) HEARING OIN THE QUESTION OF PUNISHMENT :-
U/S-248 (2) Cr. P. C.-
The accused stated that she is a mother of three children, including a
physically challenged child, aged about 39 years. Her husband lives outside
Dhemaji, presently posted at Bhutan Border, nearby Mangaldoi. She also
sustained injuries during the incident for his defence service. Thereby she
prayed for dealing her case leniently. She stated that she neither convicted
earlier nor she has any criminal mental attitude, she is totally dependent
house wife.
32) O- R- D - E - R
During the incidence the accused person also sustained simple injury
and she is the victim/injured of the cross case, GR-852/08(DMJ). The
accused and the victim are sharing their boundary as neighbor to each
other. The accused a lady, mother of three children including mother of a
physically challenged child and the offence took place at her house at night.
Considering all the circumstances of occurrence of the incidence,
the cases, the injury sustained by the accused, I am of the view that the
accused is definitely needs a lenient punishment. Accordingly on finding

the accused guilty u/s-335 IPC, I convicted her with sentence of fine of
Rs.2000/- only, in default of payment of fine a simple imprisonment of
3(three) months to the accused. In case of payment of fine, it would be
deposited in the Appropriate Head of State Account.
The alleged incident should not be encouraged in the society and for
such offence some sort of lenient punishment is essential; otherwise it
would carry a wrong message to the society. Therefore I don’t incline to
give the benefits of the Section-3 & 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to
the accused. In my opinion the aforesaid punishment would serve the ends
of justice for the alleged incident.
The bail bond of the accused stand stands cancelled forthwith hereof.
The I/O is asked to hand over the seizure articles and original documents, if
any to its respective owner(s) in due course of time in accordance with law.
B. A. is asked to take all the necessary steps.
32) The Judgment signed, sealed and delivered on this 22 nd day of
February, 2012 in the open court in presence of the accused and the Ld.
Addl. P. P..
33) Let a copy of the judgment and final order be given to the accused
free of cost.
34) The accused is also informed that she can prefer to an appeal to the
higher court if she wishes against judgment of the case.
35) This case is disposed off today accordingly on contest.
(A. K. Basumatary, AJS)
Judl. Magistrate, 1 st Class.
Dhemaji.
************************************************************