Details - Dhemaji

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;