in the court of sub divisional judicial magistrate (m), nazira

1

IN THE COURT OF SUB DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (M), NAZIRA

Present: Shri B. Kshetri, AJS,

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M),

Nazira.

PRC. Case No. 217 of 2019 u/s 143/341/323 IPC

State of Assam……………………………Complainant

-vs-

1. Sri Biren Das

2. Sri Ajit Das

3. Sri Jagat Hazarika

4. Sri Diganta Das

5. Sri Siva Das……………accused persons.

Learned Advocates who appeared in this case:

Mr. Rajib Gogoi APP………..………for the State.

Mr. A. K. Dey ……………..for the accused persons.

Particulars of the case:

Offence explained on: 22.08.2019.

Evidence recorded on: 03.09.2019, 18.09.2019, 15.10.2019, 07.11.2019, 02.01.2020,

11.02.2020, 27.02.2020.

Argument heard on: 09.11.2020.

Judgment delivered on: 03.12.2020.

JUDGMENT

1. This case was registered on 17-04-2019, at Simaluguri Police Station under sections

Typed by me

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Nazira Continued…..at page/2

of 11 Case No. PRC 217/2019

143/341/325/506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short “the IPC”), based on a

First Information Report (in short “the FIR”) filed by one Sri Prashanta Konwar

against accused persons Sri Ajit Hazarika, Sri Gobin Hazarika, Sri Shiva Das

and 12 others.

2. Prosecution case in brief is that on 17/04/2019, Sri Prashanta Konwar lodged an

FIR with O/C Simaluguri PS alleging inter-alia that on 16/04/2019 at about 7:30

p.m. while he alongwith his friend Sri Partha Pratim Barua went to the house of

Smti. Ranju Das situated at Nangalmara tinali on the occasion of Bihu then about

15/20 people without any reason wrongfully restrained them at Nangalmara tinali

and suddenly attacked them armed with lathi and spear. As a result of the attack

informant sustained severe injuries on his head, arms and waist and his friend

Partha Pratim Baruah sustained injuries on his head, hand and back. The people

attempted to kill them but somehow they managed to save their lives. Later on,

informant came to know from Smti. Ranju Das that Sri Ajit Hazarika, Sri Gobin

Hazarika, Sri Shiva Das, Sri Satya Das, Sri Harichandra Das, Sri Srimanta Das, Sri

Baba Hazarika, Sri Sarat Hazarika, Sri Kengku Das, Sri Dipak Das, Sri Dhirendra

Nath Dutta, Sri Monu Bora, Sri Buddha Das, Sri Bablu Mahanta and Sri Soru Das

attacked them. Hence the case.

3. Based on the FIR, the Officer-In-charge of Simoluguri Police Station registered the

case no. 45 of 2019, for commission of an offence punishable under sections

143/341/325/506 IPC against the accused persons and started investigation.

4. During the course of investigation, I/O visited the place of occurrence, drew sketch

map of the place of occurrence, recorded statement of witnesses, sent the injured

for medical examination, collected injury report of the injured, arrested the accused

persons and enlarged on bail. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was

filed for an offence under sections 143/341/323 IPC against the accused persons

Sri Biren Das, Sri Ajit Das, Sri Jagat Hazarika, Sri Diganta Das and Sri Siva

Das only.

5. On receipt of the case record for disposal, summon was issued to the accused

persons. In pursuant to the court-process, the accused persons appeared before

Typed by me



the Court and they were allowed to go on bail. Copies of relevant documents were

furnished to them. They pleaded not guilty to the offences u/s 143/341/323 IPC as

read over and explained to them by my learned predecessor-in-office.

6. Prosecution examined the informant/alleged victim Sri Prashanta Konwar as PW-1,

the other alleged victim Sri Partha Pratim Baruah as PW-2, Smti. Ranju Das as PW-

3, Smti. Monju Hazarika as PW-4, Smti. Sumitra Das @ Sunita Das as PW-5, Smti.

Rupa Das as PW-6, Sri Gobin Hazarika as PW-7, Sri Dhirendra Nath Dutta as PW-

8, Dr. Lava Dev Goswami (Medical Officer) as PW-9 and ASI Tulshi Bailung

(Investigating Officer) as PW-10. After closure of prosecution evidence, statement

of the accused persons u/s 313 Cr. P.C were recorded. Accused persons declined

to adduce evidence.

7. I have heard oral arguments of the learned counsels for both the sides and gone

through the case record.

8. Point for determination are:

i. Whether on 16.04.2019 at about 7:30 p.m. at Nangalmara tinali the

accused persons were members of an unlawful assembly, the common

objection of which was for committing the offence of wrongful restrain and

of hurt etc.?

ii. Whether on the same date, place and time the accused persons in pursuant

to the common object of the unlawful assembly wrongfully restrained

Prashanta Konwar and Partha Pratim Baruah?

iii. Whether on the same date, place and time the accused persons in pursuant

to the common object of the unlawful assembly voluntarily caused simple

hurt to Prashanta Konwar and Partha Pratim Baruah by blunt object?

9. Decision and the reasons thereof:

10. PW-1 is the informant/alleged victim of this case. He knows the accused. He

deposed that on 16/04/2019 at 7:30 pm, he along with his friend Partha Pratim

went to Nangalamara to the house of Ranju Das for dinner on the occasion of Bihu

but when they reached the house same was found under lock and key after which

they moved a little further and was trying to call her. At that time 15/20 persons

Typed by me



along with accused suddenly attacked him and his friend with stick and spear due

to which he sustained injuries on his head, waist and left hand. His friend also

sustained injuries. Thereafter, police from Simoluguri P.S. came to place of

occurrence and rescued them from that place. Police had sent them for medical

treatment. Thereafter he lodged the FIR on next day. Ext. 1 is the FIR. Ext. 1 (1)

is his signature.

11. In his cross-examination, PW-1 deposed that he himself had written the FIR. He

denied the suggestion that he has falsely deposed that he knows the accused

persons. He met Ranju Das after the occurrence of incident. The accused and other

persons had dragged him. He denied the suggestion that he did not mention the

name of accused before the police. He went to police station on the night of incident

and on next day. He denied the suggestion that he has falsely deposed that accused

have assaulted him with stick and spear on all over his body. The police station is

about approximately 7 km away from the place of occurrence. VDP Secretary Gobin

Hazarika and Ajit Das came to police station to inform them about the incident after

which Police from Simoluguri Police station came to place of occurrence and

rescued them. There were many houses near the place of occurrence. The police

did not ask him to identify the accused. He denied the suggestion that accused are

not involved in commission of offence. He denied the suggestion that accused were

not present in the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion that his brother

Chandra Konwar had illicit relation with Ranju Das for which he had lodged this

false case against the accused person.

12. PW-2 is one of the alleged victim of this case. He knows the accused. He deposed

that on 16/04/2019 at 7:30 pm, he along with his friend Prasanta Konwar went to

Nangalamara to the house of Smt. Ranju Das for dinner on the occasion of Bihu

but when they reached the house same was found under lock and key after which

they moved a little further and was trying to call her. At that time 15/20 person

along with accused suddenly attacked him and his friend with stick and spear due

to which he sustained injuries on his head, hand and back. His friend also sustained

injuries on his head, waist and hand. They also dragged them to Nangalamara

Typed by me



tiniali and assaulted them. Thereafter, police from Simoluguri P.S came to place of

occurrence and rescued them from that place. Police had sent them for medical

treatment. Some people also threatened them with dire consequence and

threatened to kill him.

13. In his cross examination, PW-2 deposed that on the date of incident they did not

meet Smti. Ranju Das. 15/20 persons had gathered on the day of incident. He saw

the accused amongst them in the place of occurrence. He denied the suggestion

that accused were not present at the place of occurrence on the day of occurrence.

On the next day, police had recorded his statement. He did not mention the name

of the accused when police recorded his statement. After arrest of accused, the

police did not ask him to identify the accused. Names of all accused are not known

to him. He denied the suggestion that he stated before police that Prasanta had

told him that some people had confined his brother Chandra Konwar and asked

him to accompany him to Nangalamara to rescue his brother Chandra after which

he went to Nangalamara. He denied the suggestion that he stated before police

that it became difficult to identify the persons present at the place of occurrence

at night. He denied the suggestion that accused never assaulted him and his friend.

He denied the suggestion that two of the accused have informed the police about

the incident to save their lives.

14. PW-3 knows the informant. Accused Biren Das is her husband. She also knows the

other co accused. She deposed that on 16/04/2019 at about 7:30 pm one quarrel

took place and at that time she was in her house. Ritu Das, Dipa Das and Manju

Das had come to her house and informed her that their guests Prasanta Konwar

and Partha Pratim Baruah were being assaulted by some villager at Nangalamara

tiniali. Thereafter, she immediately went to the place of occurrence and saw

Simanta Das, Harish Das and Satya Das assaulting Prasanta Konwar and Partha

Pratim Baruah very badly and Satya Das and Siva Das had abused them in slang

language. Prasanta Konwar and Partha Pratim Baruah came to her house on the

occasion of Bihu but at that time Simanta Das, Siva Das, Harichandra Das and

Satya Das had assaulted Prasanta Konwar and Partha Pratim Baruah. She saw

Simanta Das, Siva Das, Harichandra Das and Satya Das assaulting Prasanta Konwar

Typed by me



and Partha Pratim Baruah very badly. Thereafter she came back to her house.

15. In her cross examination, PW-3 deposed that the place of occurrence is 50 metre

away from her house. She denied the suggestion that she stated before police that

at about 10:00 pm, she heard some hue and cry but she did not go out of her

house out of fear and that she could not identify the persons due to darkness.

16. PW-4 deposed that in the Month of April 2019 at night she was in her house and

heard hue and cry coming from Nangalamara tiniali. She did not go to the place of

occurrence. In the morning she heard that one quarrel took place in the place of

occurrence. She does not know who were involved in the quarrel. She does

not know why the quarrel took place.

17. In her cross examination, PW-4 deposed that at the time of incident she was in her

house and she did not come out of her house. She does not know the detail of the

incident.

18. PW-5 deposed that the incident took place in the year 2019 during Bohag Bihu in

the evening time. At that time she was in her house. She does not know anything

about the incident. She heard that accused had quarrel for which a case was

lodged. The people from their locality came to Simoluguri Police station and she

also came to Simoluguri with them. She heard that quarrel took place. She does

not know anything else.

19. In her cross examination, PW-5 deposed that at the time of incident she was in her

house and she did not see the quarrel. She does not know the detail of the incident.

20. PW-6 deposed that the incident took place during Bohag Bihu in the evening time.

At that time she was in her parent’s house. Later she heard one quarrel took place

between Biren Das and his wife. She had not witnessed the quarrel. She does not

know anything about the incident.

21. In her cross examination, PW-6 deposed that she had not witnessed the incident.

She does not know the detail of the incident.

22. PW-7 knows the informant and the accused. He deposed that informant used to

come to the house of Biren Das. The incident took place on 16/04/2019 at about

9:30 pm / 10:00 pm. At that time he was in Nangalamara tiniali and saw 15/16

persons creating hue and cry in front of the house of Ranju Das. Then he went to

Typed by me



the place of occurrence. The situation got tensed for which he came to police

station along with accused Ajit Das to inform the police about the incident. He

heard that Chandra Konwar, Parth Pratim used to visit the house of Ranju Das for

which the incident took place. He does not know anything else about the incident.

23. In his cross examination, PW-7 deposed that when he went to the place of

occurrence he did not see the accused person in the place of occurrence. 15/20

person had gathered at the place of occurrence.

24. PW-8 deposed that he had not witnessed the incident. On 16/04/2018 at about

7:30 pm when he was in his house, VDP Secretary Gobin Hazarika had informed

him that public had gathered at the house of Biren Das after which he reached

Nangalamara tiniali, he saw two men namely Konwar and Baruah who were

returning in bike from the house of Biren Das. The public also followed the said

two men. Those two men did not did not tell him anything about the incident. But

later on the two men namely Konwar and Baruah came back and told him that they

were assaulted. They did not tell him who had assaulted them. He saw injury on

the head of man namely Konwar. Then he informed the police.

25. In his cross examination, PW-8 deposed that he did not witness the incident. When

he met the two men namely Konwar and Baruah, he did not see the accused person

at that place. The injured did not tell him who had assaulted them. It was dark and

it was raining at that time.

26. PW-9 the medical officer in his evidence deposed that on 16/04/2019 he was

posted at Nazira S.H.C as senior medical officer. On that day at about 11:15 pm on

requisition of Simaluguri P.S. Case No. 45/19 u/s 143,325,341,506 IPC, he

examined Shri Partha Pratim Boruah S/o Diganta Boruah of Hahchara Kujibali

Choudang Gaon. Patient came with history of physical assault by public. On

examination he found one lacerated injury on left temporal bone of skull measuring

1 inch length x ½ inch breadth X ¼ depth with swelling and bleeding. After

examination and treatment he advised for C.T. Scan of brain. Report was not

submitted. In his opinion injury was recent, fresh and simple caused by blunt

object. Exhibit-2 is the medical report and Exhibit-2(1) is his signature.

Typed by me



27. PW-9 further deposed that on the same day at about 11:10 pm on requisition of

Simaluguri P.S Case No. 45/19 u/s 143,325,341,506 IPC, he examined Shri

Prashanta Konwar S/o Late Bipul Konwar of Hahchara Kujibali Choudang Gaon.

Patient came with history of physical assault by public. On examination he found

(I) lacerated injury on right temporal bone of skull measuring 1 inch length x ½

inch breadth X ¼ depth with bleeding and (II) one hematoma with swelling was

present at left temporal bone. After examination and treatment he advised for C.T.

Scan of brain. Report was not submitted. In his opinion injury was recent, fresh

and simple caused by blunt object. Exhibit-3 is the medical report and Exhibit-3(1)

is his signature.

28. In his cross examination, PW-9 deposed that he had not written the name of

escorting police personnel in Exhibit-2 and Exhibit-3.

29. PW-10 the investigating officer in his evidence deposed that on 17/04/19 he was

posted at Simaluguri PS as A.S.I. On that day O/C Simaluguri P.S received an FIR

lodged by informant Shri. Prashanta Konwar. Accordingly O/C Simaluguri P.S

registered that FIR as Simaluguri P.S case no. 45/19 u/s 143/341/325/506 IPC and

endorsed him to take pre step of the case. On 17/04/2019 after recording the

statement of the informant at the P.S., he visited place of occurrence, drew the

sketch map of the place of occurrence and recorded statement of witnesses. He

searched for the accused parsons in their house but they were not found. He asked

the family members of the accused persons to direct them to appear before him at

P.S. On 19/04/2019 accused persons appeared before him at P.S and he recorded

their statement. He released them serving notice u/s 41 (A) Cr. PC. On 16/04/2019

victim appeared at the P.S and she was sent for medical examination. He collected

the medical report of the victim. Thereafter he handed over the case diary to O/C

Simaluguri P.S. Basing upon the materials collected by him, S.I Shri Bijay Duwarah

submitted the charge sheet against the accused persons u/s 143/341/323/294 IPC.

Exhibit-4 is the sketch map and Exhibit-4(1) is his signature. Exhibit-5 is the charge

sheet and Exhibit-5(1) is the signature of S.I Shri Bijay Duwarah.

Typed by me



30. In his cross examination, PW-10 deposed that the occurrence took place on

16/04/2019. He denied the suggestion that place of occurrence was not shown to

him by the informant or any other witness. PW Ranju Das stated before him that

at about 10 p.m. she heard screaming near her house and out of fear she did not

go out of her house.

31. During argument hearing learned counsel for the accused persons submitted that

there is no cogent evidence to link the accused persons with the alleged occurrence

and accused were not identified by the injured. On the other hand learned APP for

the State argued that prosecution has established the case beyond all doubt and

accused needs to be punished as per law.

32. In view of the rival contention and as all the points are intricately connected with

each other and based upon same set of evidence, I have taken upon all the points

together for discussion. On perusal of evidence on record it appears that PW-4,

PW-5 and PW-6 did not see the occurrence. From the FIR it appears that the

accused were not known to the informant and alleged victims as they came to

know about the assaulter from PW-3 Ranju Das. From the FIR it also appears that

15/20 people attacked the PW-1 and PW-2. Although PW-3 Ranju Das claimed to

have witnessed the alleged occurrence her evidence cannot be relied upon. This

witness materially improved her statement as the I/O in his evidence confirmed

that PW Ranju Das stated before him that at about 10 pm she heard screaming

near her house and out of fear she did not go out of her house. Presence of PW-3

Ranju Das at the place of alleged occurrence also cannot be believed as one of the

alleged victim (PW-2) deposed that on the date of incident they did not meet Ranju

Das. The PW-3 deposed that she went to the place of occurrence on getting the

information about the alleged occurrence. From the evidence of PW-8 it also

appears that it was dark at the time of alleged occurrence. So from the evidence

of PW-8 as there was no lighting it creates a confusion about the identity of the

accused. As per evidence of PW-7 and PW-8 when they went to the place of

occurrence they did not see the accused persons at the place of occurrence. In fact

Typed by me



PW-7 (Gobin Hazarika) deposed that he alongwith accused Ajit Das went to police

station to inform the police about the incident and his statement is corroborated

by the informant (PW-1) himself. Informant (PW-1) deposed that VDP secretary

Gobin Hazarika (PW-7) and Ajit Das (accused) went to police station to inform

about the incident and thereafter police went and rescued them. Although from the

evidence of injured and medical evidence it is clear that PW-1 and PW-2 sustained

injuries on their persons but prosecution failed to elucidate material to believe the

case about the identification of the accused that they have committed the offence

alleged as informant alleged in Exhibit-1 (FIR) that about 15/20 people attacked

him and PW-2.

33. Considering all aspect of the fact and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion

that prosecution failed to prove the charge against the accused persons and hence

the accused persons are acquitted from the charges u/s 143/341/323 IPC and set

at liberty forthwith.

34. Bail bond executed by the accused persons and surety are extended for next six

months from today as per section 437 (A) Cr. P.C.

35. Judgment is pronounced in open court. The case is disposed of on contest.

36. Given under the hand and seal of this court on this 3rd day of December, 2020.

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M),

Nazira.

Typed by me

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Nazira Continued…..at page 11/Appendix


APPENDIX

Prosecution Witnesses:

1. P.W.1- Sri Prashanta Konwar

2. P.W.2- Sri Partha Pratim Baruah

3. P.W.3- Smti. Ranju Das

4. P.W.4- Smti. Manju Hazarika

5. P.W.5- Smti. Sumitra Das @ Sunita Das

6. P.W.6- Smti. Rupa Das

7. P.W.7- Sri Gobin Hazarika

8. P.W.8- Sri Dhirendra Nath Dutta

9. P.W.9- Dr. Lava Dev Goswami (Medical Officer)

10. P.W.10- ASI Tulshi Bailung (Investigating Officer)

Defence Witnesses: None

Prosecution Exhibits:

1. Exhibit 1- F.I.R.

2. Exhibit 2- Injury report of victim

3. Exhibit 3- Injury report of victim

4. Exhibit 4- Sketch map

5. Exhibit 5- Charge sheet

Defence Exhibits: None

Typed by me

Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate (M), Nazira.

in the court of sub divisional judicial magistrate (m), nazira

Documents

Transcript of in the court of sub divisional judicial magistrate (m), nazira