Details - Dhemaji

IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, DHEMAJI.
Present :- J. Ahmed, A.J.S.
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dhemaji.
G.R. Case No.722 of 2010(DMJ).
U/S. 498(A) of IPC.
The State of Assam ……………………………….…………..The Complainant.
Versus
Sri. Moon Saikia …….. .……….………… ………………….The accused/person.
Date of recording evidence : 15.09.2011, 24.10.2011, 22.11.2011 &
24.02.2012.
Date of hearing Arguments : 14.03.2012.
Date of Judgment : 28.03.2012.
Judgment delivered on : 28.03.2012.
Mr. P. Gohain, Addl.P.P. ………………………..……..Appeared for the State.
AND
Mr. K. C. Sonowal, Advocate, ...…..……… ………….Appeared for the defence.
J U D G M E N T.
The prosecution case in brief is that on 28.09.2010 the informant Smt. Nitu Chiring
Saikia (P.W.1) wife of the accused Sri. Moon Saikia of village Moridhal Khajua under
Dhemaji police station within the District Dhemaji had lodged a written ejahar (Ext.1) with
Dhemaji police station alleging that about one year back she was married to the accused Sri.
Moon Saikia according to social custom and rites. After three months of her marriage the
accused persons namely Sri. Moon Saikia and Smt. Pramee Saikia started torture to the
informant on demand of dowry. On the night of 27.09.2010 at about 9-45 p.m. at the
instigation of the accused Smt. Pramee Saikia the accused Sri. Moon Saikia had closed the
door of their house and the accused had forcibly taken away the wearing cloth of the
informant. The accused tried to tie up the hands and feet of the informant by cloths and the
accused had threatened her that he would cut her hair by scissors. The informant somehow
could managed herself and she had fled away by opening the door of the house of the
accused. Accordingly the
Contd. on page – 2;

2
police registered Dhemaji P/S. Case No.286/2010, U/S.498(A) of IPC against the accused
persons and took up investigation. After completion of usual investigation the police
submitted charge sheet U/S.498(A) of IPC against the accused person Sri. Moon Saikia only
to stand for trial. Hence, this case.
2. After receiving the charge sheet the cognizance was taken against the
accused person U/S.498(A) of IPC and the process was issued to the accused person to stand
for trial U/S.498(A) of IPC. Accordingly the accused person has appeared before the court to
face the trial U/S.498(A) of IPC.
3. The copies were duly furnished to the accused and after hearing learned advocate of
both the parties and considering the materials on records the formal charge U/S.498(A) of
IPC was framed against the accused person and the charge was read over and explained to
the accused person to which the accused person pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. At the trial the prosecution has examined as many as 5 (five) witnesses including the
informant and the investigating officer of the case in support of the prosecution case. The
prosecution has also produced and exhibited 3 (three) number of documents in support of its
case. After completion of recording of evidence of the witnesses produced by the
prosecution, the accused person has been examined as per provisions of section 313 of Cr. P.
C. and his statements have been recorded. The accused person has denied his involvement in
the commission of the offence alleged in the case and has pleaded his innocence. The
accused person has declined to adduce defence evidence in support of his defence.
5. The witnesses examined by the prosecution are:
P.W.1—Smt. Nitu Chiring Saikia (Informant),
P.W.2—Smt. Bishawa Kanti Chiring,
P.W.3—Smt. Manju Gogoi,
P.W.4—Sri. Dinesh Baruah and
P.W.5—S.I. Sri. Bijoy Duara (Investigating officer).
6. The documents produced and exhibited by the prosecution are:
Ext.1—The ejahar,
Ext.2—The sketch map of place of occurrence and
Ext.3—The charge sheet.
7. NOW THE POINT FOR DETERMINATION IS:
(a) Whether the accused since after 3 months of their marriage started demand of dowry
from his wife Smt. Nitu Chiring Saikia and on 27.09.2010 at about 9-45 p.m. at Bhehpara
Baruah Chuk the accused being the husband of Smt. Nitu Chiring Saikia subjected her to
mental and physical cruelty and thereby committed an offence which is punishable
U/S.498(A) of IPC;
Contd. on page – 3;

3
8. I have carefully gone through the case records and perused the entire evidence on
records both oral and documentary. I have heard the arguments advanced and the
submissions made by the learned Addl. P. P. on behalf of the State and the learned advocate
for the defence.
9. DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:
The learned Addl.P.P. appearing for the state has argued and submitted that the evidence
of the prosecution witnesses have supported the prosecution case and the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses is corroborative to each other. The learned Addl. P. P. has further
submitted that the defence fails to shake the trustworthiness of the evidence of the
prosecution witnesses during their cross-examination and the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses can be relied on in support of the prosecution case. The learned Addl. P. P. has
also submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused
person as alleged beyond all reasonable doubt and the accused person is liable to be
convicted as per law.
10. On the other hand the rival submissions of the learned advocate for the defence is that
the prosecution case is based on some false and fabricated allegations and the prosecution
case is full of contradictions, omissions and exaggerations. The learned advocate for the
defence has argued that the story narrated in the ejahar is quite different from the story
narrated by the prosecution witnesses during their examination before the court. The learned
advocate for the defence has also submitted that there is no evidence to show that the
accused demanded any dowry from the P.W.1 and the accused being the husband of P.W.1
subjected her to mental and physical cruelty on demand of dowry. The learned advocate for
the defence has further contented that the P.W.1 had entered into marriage tie with the
accused when both of them were College student. But unfortunately the accused had to stop
his studies and started to work as Taxi driver to maintain his family after the sudden death of
his father. And for this reasons the P.W.1 and her family members do not like the accused
and they had filed this false case only to get separation of the P.W.1 from the accused. The
learned advocate for the defence has also submitted that the prosecution fails to prove the
case against the accused person as alleged beyond all reasonable doubt and hence the
accused person is entitled to get acquittal from the charge levelled against him.
11. I have given my sincere consideration on the entire evidence on records both oral and
documentary and other materials as well. Also heard suave submissions made by the learned
counsels of both the parties. Now let us see how far the prosecution has been able to bring
home the charges against the accused person on the basis of materials available before us on
records. On perusal the ejahar i.e. Ext.1 it is seen that in the Ext.1 the informant P.W.1 has
stated that on the night of 27.09.2010 at about 9-45 p.m. she was confined inside a room by
the accused and the accused had made her naked and the accused took an attempt to tie up
Contd. on page – 4;

4
her hands and feet. And the P.W.1 somehow could managed herself and she had fled away
from the house of the accused. But during her examination before the court the informant as
P.W.1 has stated that on 27.09.2010 she was assaulted by the accused inside a closed door
room and the accused had cut her hair. She has also stated that the accused had put ashes on
her face and the accused had strangulated her expressing that the accused would kill her. It
also reveals from the evidence of the P.W.1 that she rang to her mother and she was
recovered from the house of the accused by her mother with the help of police. But at the
same time during her cross-examination the P.W.1 has deposed that nobody from her
parents’ house had accompanied the police while she was brought by the police from the
house of the accused. Again the P.W.1 has stated that she met her mother, sister and brotherin-law
Sri. Dinesh Baruah at police station. Thus on perusal the Ext.1 and the evidence of
the P.W.1 it is seen that there are so many material contradictions, exaggerations and
omissions in the evidence of the P.W.1. So if we believe the story narrated in the Ext.1 we
cannot believe the evidence of the P.W.1 in support of the prosecution case.
12. The evidence of the P.W.2 shows that after six months of the marriage of the
informant the P.W.2 went to the house of the accused and in presence of the P.W.2 the
accused had scolded and physically assaulted the informant. It also reveals from the
evidence of the P.W.2 that she was driven out from the house of the accused. But the
evidence of the P.W.1 is silent about these facts. Again from the evidence of the P.W.2 it is
seen that after 3 to 4 months she was informed by the informant over telephone that the
informant was physically assaulted by the accused. Then the P.W.2 had informed the matter
to the police over telephone and the police had brought the informant from the house of the
accused. Thus on perusal the evidence of the P.W.1 and the P.W.2 it is seen that there are so
many material contradictions in their evidence and there is no corroboration in their
evidence. On perusal the evidence of the P.W.3 it is seen that the P.W.3 has tried to bring
some new facts to the light by stating that the accused used to quarrel with the informant
after taking alcohol and the P.W.3 had seen some wounds on the person of the informant.
But the informant has never stated that the accused had quarreled with her after taking
alcohol and the informant sustained any wounds on her person. Thus it appears that the
evidence of the P.W.3 has not corroborated the evidence of the P.W.1 and the evidence of the
P.W.3 is nothing but exaggeration. Hence the evidence of the P.W.3 cannot be accepted and
relied on in support of the prosecution case. From the evidence of the P.W.4 it shows that on
demand of dowry the accused had physically assaulted the P.W.1 after taking alcohol and the
informant had communicated the matter to her parents’ over telephone. Thereafter the
parents’ of the informant had brought the informant from the house of the accused with the
help of police. Thus it is seen that the evidence of the P.W.4 has also not corroborated the
evidence of P.W.1, 2 and 3. The evidence of the P.W.5 the investigating officer of the case is
that on 28.09.2010 he was working at Dhemaji police station and on that day the Officer-in-
Charge of the police station had received one written ejahar from the informant and
Contd. on page – 5;

5
registered a case which was endorsed to him for its investigation. Accordingly the P.W.5 had
visited the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses, the injured was send to
Hospital for her treatment and the P.W.5 had drawn the sketch map of the place of
occurrence which is Ext.2 and the Ext.2(1) is his signature. It also reveals from the evidence
of the P.W.5 that during investigation the accused was arrested and forwarded to the Court
and after completion of the investigation the P.W.5 has submitted the charge sheet against
the accused. The Ext.3 is the charge sheet and the Ext.3(1) is his signature. At the time of his
cross-examination the P.W.5 has stated that the informant had stated before him that the
informant was taken from the house of the accused by the family members of the informant.
And the informant did not stated before him that on demand of dowry the accused had
physically assaulted her inside a closed door room. Thus it is seen that the evidence of the
P.W.5 has brushed out the prosecution case.
13. After perusal the evidence of the prosecution witnesses it is seen that the evidence of
the prosecution witnesses is not trustworthy and reliable in support of the prosecution case
and their evidence do not help the prosecution case in any way. Hence I have no alternative
but to hold the opinion that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge against
the accused person as alleged beyond all reasonable doubt by adducing reliable and
acceptable evidence or circumstances. I find there is no evidence to show that the accused
being the husband of Smt. Nitu Chiring Saikia subjected her to mental and physical cruelty
on demand of dowry. So we can safely come to the conclusion that there is no evidence to
show the involvement of the accused person with the alleged offence U/S.498(A) of IPC.
Hence in my considered view I hold the opinion that the accused person is not guilty
U/S.498(A) of IPC. Accordingly I acquit the accused person of the charge U/S.498(A) of
IPC levelled against him. Set him at liberty forth with. The bail bond stands cancelled.
14. Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 28 th Day of March, 2012 at
Dhemaji.
contd. on page – 6;

6
(ORDER)
The prosecution fails to prove the case against the accused person as alleged beyond
all reasonable doubt by adducing reliable and acceptable evidence. I find there is no
evidence to show the involvement of the accused person with the alleged offence
U/S.498(A) of IPC. And in my considered view I hold the opinion that the accused person is
not guilty U/S.498(A) of IPC. Accordingly I acquit the accused person of the charge
U/S.498(A) of IPC levelled against him. Set him at liberty forth with. The bail bond stands
cancelled. The details Judgment is written on separate sheets and kept with case records for
the ends of justice.
Dictated & Corrected by me.
(J. Ahmed.)
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dhemaji.
(J. Ahmed.)
Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Dhemaji.