Details - Dhemaji

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