J U D G M E N T - Jorhat

2
1)Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, have committed
rioting,as alleged
2)Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of common intention, had committed
criminal trespass into the properties of the complainant, as alleged
3)Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had
voluntarily caused hurt to the complainant and Sri Saral Das, as alleged
4)Whether the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, had
committed mischief to the properties of the complainant, as alleged
DISCUSSION, DECISION WITH REASONS:
PW1, Sri Achelal Gupta, in his evidence had stated that on the day of occurrence, the
accused persons had entered his ice factory to discuss matter relating to rent, and an
argument took place between them and himself over the issue of rent. Thereafter, he
tried to flee from the place, but while fleeing he fell down and sustained injury.
PW2, Sri Saral Das, in his evidence had stated that on the day of occurrence, there was
an argument between the complainant and the accused persons over the matter of rent.
He fell down on the ground due to tussle.
From the evidence it is not established that the accused persons had committed rioting
because , firstly, the accused persons themselves did not form an unlawful assembly.
They had entered the ice factory of the complainant, to discuss the issue of rent. There is
no evidence to show that the accused persons had committed any offence. Mere taking
place of argument does not prove taking place of rioting. Moreover, PW2 had only
stated that a tussle took place, but he remained silent as to who had caused the tussle.
Further, PW1 had stated that he sustained injury as he fell down on the ground.
Similarly, PW2 had stated that he also received injury as he fell down. But there is
nothing on record to prove that the accused persons had voluntarily pushed them to the
ground, so as to cause injury.
Further, as the accused persons had entered into the ice factory, merely to discuss
matter of rent and an argument took place. But in the absence of what argument took
place, it cannot be said with reasonable certainty that the accused persons had entered
the premises with the intention to cause an offence or annoy the complainant.
Lastly, there is no evidence to show that the accused had damaged any property of the
factory.
Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the accused persons u/s
147/323/447/427 of IPC, beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, the accused persons,