Details - Dhemaji

DISTRICT:- DHEMAJI.
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS::: DHEMAJI
PRESENT:- MR. AJOY KR. BASUMATARY; AJS.
JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 1 st CLASS
DHEMAJI.
GR. Case No.584/2011(SLP); U/S-448/354/352 IPC
PRC No.-414/11; in connection with SLP. P/S.C/No.128/2011.
The State Of Assam------------------Complainant.
-V-
Shri Rangmon Saikia.
S/O-Lt. Tiyam Saikia,
R/O-Sili Assamiya Gaon,
P/S-Silapathar, Dist.-Dhemaji.
…………………..Accused Person.
ADVOCATE FOR THE PROSECUTION:- Mr. Prasanta Konch.
Ld. Asstt. P. P. Assam.
ADVOCATE FOR THE ACCUSED PERSON:- Mr. Rupeswar Bhuyan.
Ld. Advocate, DMJ. B.A.
Date Of Evidences:-17-11-2011 & 23-02-2012.
Date Of Argument:-23-02-2012.
Date Of Judgment: 07-03-2012.
Date of Judgment Delivered: 07-03-2012.
J – U – D – G – M – E – N – T
1) The Prosecution story, in brief is like that on 03-08-2011 the
complainant, Smti. Tutumoni Saikia R/O-Sili Assamiya Gaon under P/S-
Silapathar lodged a written ejahar at the P/S-SLP stating inter alia that the
accused person entered into her house on 02-08-2011 at 3.30 pm when she

was alone and tried to drag her inside the bed room by pulling her hand.
Then she immediately raised alarm by shouting and managed to free herself
from the accused person and escaped. Thereafter, she informed the matter
to the villagers. The accused person was called by the villagers and asked to
clarify about the accusations made by the complainant. The accused person
then suddenly assaulted the complainant by throwing her down on a low
land/Khal. The complainant was then rescued by the villagers. The victimcomplainant
got her medical treatment on police requisition. However the
doctor did not find any external injury on the body of the complainant.
Hence this is the present case against the accused person. Now, the accused
person stands charged for the offences of Section-448/352/354 IPC.
2) The First Information Report (FIR in short) was registered upon
receipt of the written Ejahar from the complainant and then the police took
up the investigation and after their usual investigation, submitted the
Charge-sheet against the accused person U/S-448/354/352 IPC. Then the
Ld. CJM took cognizance into the case by accepting the charge sheet.
Thereafter, I received the case records on being transferred for disposal on
12-10-2011.
3) In pursuance of summons, the accused person appeared before the court
to face the trial. He was allowed to remain on bail bond.
The necessary copies and the relevant documents were furnished to the
accused person on 01-11-2011. On finding sufficient grounds and a prima
facie case U/S-448/352/354 IPC for presuming that the accused person had
committed the alleged offences of the case, I have explained and read out
the particulars of the alleged offences; to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried. Then the prosecution was directed to lead their
evidences in the case.
4) POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:-
a) Whether the accused person on 02-08-2011 at about 3.30pm at
Siliassamiya Gaon under the P/S-SLP entered into the house of the
2

complainant to commit any offence and thereby committed the offence of
house trespass.
b) Whether the accused person on 02-08-2011 at Siliassamiya gaon at
3.30 pm under the P/S-SLP used any criminal force and assaulted the
complainant otherwise than on any grave provocation.
c) Whether the accused person on 02-08-2011 at 3.30pm at Siliassamiya
Gaon under the P/S-SLP used any criminal force or assaulted the
complainant with the intent to outrage her modesty.
5) THE PROSECUTION SIDE has examined all together 5(five)
following prosecution witnesses to prove their case:-
i) PW1------------The Complainant/victim no.1-Smti. Titumoni Saikia,
ii) PW2-------------Umeswar Chutia,
iii) PW3------------Naal Saikia,
iv) PW4-------------Mohan Saikia and
v) PW5-------------Budheswar Saikia.
The Exhibited documents are as follows:-
a) Exhibit No.1-------------------FIR, dtd. 03-08-2011.
6) The accused person was also examined U/S-313 Cr. P. C. where he had
totally denied his involvement in the alleged offences of the case and he
deposed that the complainant had adduced false evidences against him. He
did not enter into her house. Both the complainant and the accused fell
down into the ditch when she was chasing to beat the accused and he had
pushed her. The accused had tried to come out of the ditch but had failed to
do so.
7) DISCUSSION, REASONS AND DECISION:-
I have also heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the
State/Mr. P. Konch and Ld.Counsel/Mr. R. Bhuyan for the accused person
and also gone through all the evidences available with the records.
3

Learned counsel for the State has stated that the FIR/ Exhibit No.1 has
corroborated with the version of the complainant and other prosecution
witnesses. The accused person himself admitted,U/S-313 Cr. P. C. that he
used force against the complainant and pushed her into the ditch. However
he has no proof that the complainant was the first aggressor by chasing the
accused to beat in the alleged incident. All the PW2-to 5 deposed that they
had seen how the accused had pushed the complainant. Therefore the
prosecution counsel has claimed for the conviction of the accused person.
8) On the other hand, Ld. Counsel on behalf of the accused person stated
that the so-called victim has no proof that she was assaulted by the accused
with an intent to outrage her modesty. He submits that there is no eye
witness to the fact that the accused had entered into her house and touched
her body or hand as such. The accused had committed no offence by
pushing the complainant into the ditch as it done in self defence. The
complainant at that moment was trying to assault the accused in front of the
people. Therefore the Ld. Defence counsel has claimed for the acquittal the
accused person.
Now I have discussed all the points together for decision of the case
keeping in mind the submissions of both the sides as follows-
9) PW1/victim no.1 -cum- the complainant stated on 03-08-2011 when she
was alone in the house at about 3pm the accused person entered into her
house and pulled her hand and tried to drag her into the bed room. Then she
saved herself by raising hue and cry and running away from the house. The
accused had touched her waist. Then she told all the villagers present in the
neighbouring house for a social ceremony/’hokam’. Then Shri Gopal
Chutia, Umeshwar Chutia and Nal Chutia called the accused to her house.
The accused after reaching again assaulted the complainant by hitting her
with hardened soil/’maki tukda’ due to which she got injured on her
forehead. He again hit her with a punch and pushed her into the ditch. In
the ditch also he assaulted her by hitting her. After the incident she lodged
4

the Exhibit no.1/FIR in the P/S-SLP and Ex.-1(1) is her signature. She got
medically treatments on the police requisition.
During the cross of the PW1, Ld. defence counsel has give some
suggestions to which the PW1 had replied nothing in the favour the accused
person. She stated that the accused person is her borjona-husband’s elder
brother. The defence side failed to demolish her evidences for their favour.
However it is found that the prosecution side has no medical proof of the
injury of PW1, now let’s see what other prosecution witnesses stated during
the trial.
10) PW2-has stated that he went to the house of PW1 with PW3/Naal
Chutia, Gopal Chutia and 7-8 others, when the complainant called them to
sort out the incident. He called the accused person in the house of PW1 and
before the meeting got start the accused person suddenly pushed the
complainant in a ditch in front of the villagers and the accused also get
down on the ditch and thereafter PW1 lodged the ejahar of the case. he did
not see any fighting between them in the spot.
11) PW3 has also stated similarly as PW2. He did not see the accused
entering into the house of PW1. He went to the house of PW1 when PW1
called the villagers to sort out the incident. He had seen the scuffling
between the accused and PW1 and both of them fell down on a ditch. He did
not see the injury of the complainant as such.
12) PW4 is the elder brother of the accused person and PW1 his sister inlaw.
He deposed that he did not see that incident but only heard that there
was an altercation and fighting between the accused and PW1. He heard
that the accused pushed PW1 to a khal; however he had not seen any injury
on the body of PW1.
13) PW5 deposed that he did not see the incident. He was not present there
in the place of occurrence. He heard about an altercation between the
accused and PW1. He did not know much more about the incident.
5

14) Going through all the evidences available with the record and after
hearing both the sides, it is seen that there was no witness of the fact that the
accused had entered into the house of PW1 and touched the body of PW1
with an intent to outrage her modesty.
However I have found that the defence side has failed to proof and show
that the accused had used the forces/pushed PW1 in the self defence only
and they failed to show that the complainant had given any grave
provocation to the accused and then the accused had used the forces unto
PW1 and fell her down on the ditch.
Neither any prosecution witnesses stated that PW1 had used any abusive
provocation words to the accused nor stated that PW1 has initially tried to
assault the accused in front of the villagers. The statement of the accused
has no proof that he had pushed PW1 only to defend himself from PW1. The
PW1 is the sister in law of the accused. In the present case that PW1 was
pushed into a ditch and the accused assaulted her thereof after fell her
down, it has stated by all the prosecution witnesses and even the accused
has also stated that he pushed her into the ditch/khal. In these regards, I
don’t find that PW1 had stated anything exaggeratedly in the case. Here
PW1 versions in the regard have been corroborated with the versions of
PW2 -to- PW3.
The PW4 & PW5 had also heard about the altercation between the
accused and PW1. The prosecution side has failed to show the medical
proof of any injury of PW1. It is true that in every such assault and case, we
may not get any medical proof of the injury. The injury may not be eternal
and/or serious one, but it does not mean that the person did not sustain any
pain and the accused did not use any criminal force as such. The accused
has also failed to show having any previous enmity with PW1.
Keeping in view all the discussed facts, I have come to conclusion that
the prosecution has failed to prove the aforesaid Point No.-(i) and (iii).
However, the prosecution has succeeded to prove the Point No.-(ii) only and
decided in affirmative against the accused person.
6

15) O - R - D - E - R
The prosecution has succeeded to prove its case for the offence of
Section-352 IPC only against the accused, the rest charged offences were
not been proved at all. The accused is guilty U/S-352 IPC therefore; the
accused/Rangman Saikia is convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of
Rs.500/-(Rupees five hundred only) U/S-352 IPC and in case of default in
making the payment of fine a Simple Imprisonment for 1(One) Month.
In case of fine payment, the same shall be deposited in the appropriate
Head of Account of the State Govt.
The accused person was on bail bond, his bail bond is set-aside
forthwith and the accused shall be taken into custody forthwith to serve out
the imprisonment, if he fails to make payment of the sentenced fine amount.
The I/O is directed to hand over the seized articles and original
documents if any, to its owner(s) in accordance with law in due course of
time.
16) A copy of the Judgment and final order shall be given to the accused
person free of cost. The convicted were also informed that if he wishes then
he can go to the higher court against the judgment and order of this case.
17) The Judgment signed, sealed and delivered in the open court in
presence of the accused person and Ld. Asstt. P. P.(Assam) on 07-03-2012
18) This case is disposed off accordingly as on contest.
(Ajoy Kr. Basumatary, AJS)
Judl. Magistrate;1 st Class.
Dhemaji.
*************************************
7