1
IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, 1ST CLASS,
SARUPATHAR, GOLAGHAT
G.R. Case no 156/2015
U/S 294/427/506 of I.P.C.
State
-vSri Kamal Sarmah .......………Accused person
PRESENT:
Sri P. Choudhury
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class
Sarupathar, Golaghat
ADVOCATES APPEARED:
For the prosecution: - Sri B. Das, Ld A.P.P.
For the defence
: - Smti G. Gohain.............., Ld Advocate.
Evidence recorded on: 19.9.15
Argument heard on : 19.9.15
Judgment delivered on: 19.9.15
JUDGEMENT
2
The Case of the Prosecution in Brief:1
The case of the prosecution in brief as revealed from the Ejahar is that on 26.4.15 at
about 8.30 A.M when a cow of the informant had entered into the compound of the
accused, the accused person had came to the front yard of the house of the informant and
had scolded them with obscene languages and had also broken the “jeora” of their house. It
is further stated in the ejahar that the accused persons threatens the informant of killing
him when he meets him on the road.
2
The police registered the case being Borpothar P.S. Case No. 41/15 and started
investigation of the case. After completion of the investigation, the I.O. of this case
submitted charge-sheet U/S- 294/427/506 0f IPC, against the accused person –
1. Sri Kamal Sarmah
3
The accused person was brought on arrest before the court. The accused person
was supplied with the copies of relevant documents, as required U/S-207 of Cr.P.C.
Considering the relevant documents and upon hearing both the parties, the particulars of
offence under section 294/427/506 of IPC were red over and explained to the accused
person to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4
Prosecution had examined as many as 1 witness in support of the case i.e. the
informant of the case. After examining the witnesses the evidence from the prosecution side
was closed.
5 As there was no incriminating materials the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C
was dispensed with.
6
I have heard arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the accused person as well
as the Ld. A.P.P. For the State and also perused the case record carefully.
7 POINT FOR DETERMINATION IN THIS CASE:Whether the accused person had on 26.4.15 at about 8.30 A.M scolded the informant with
obscene languages and had also broken the “jeora” of their house and whether the accused
person threatened the informant of killing him and thereby committed offence punishable
U/S 294/427/506 of I.P.C
DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE, DISCESION AND REASONS THEREOF:
8 The prosecution had examined one witness in support of their case. Now, let me
appreciate the evidence of the witnesses in the instant case as well as other evidences on
record and thereby to arrive at a just decision –
9 P.W 1 Ruhit Sarma had deposed in his evidence that he is the informant and that the
accused is his brother. He deposed that the incident occurred on 26.4.15 at about 8.30 A.M.
He deposed that at that time the accused had came to his house for visiting purposes and
after coming he and the accused person had a verbal argument for some family matters
3
because of which he had lodged the ejahar in anger. Ext 1 is the ejahar and Ext 1(1) is his
signature.
10 P.W 1 had in his cross admitted that he had lodged the ejahar because of a
misunderstanding. He had also deposed in his cross that he has no objection if the accused
person is acquitted and that currently he had compromised with the accused person.
11 Now on going through the evidence on record I find some contradiction in the evidence
of the informant as P.W 1 to that of what he had stated in his F.I.R
12 The informant had stated in his ejahar that on 26.4.15 at about 8.30 A.M when his cow
had entered into the compound of the accused, the accused person had came to the front
yard his house and had scolded them with obscene languages and had also broken the
“jeora” of their house. It is further stated in the ejahar that the accused persons threatens
him of killing him when he meets him on the road. But the informant had stated in his
evidence that he is the informant nad that the accused is his brother. He deposed that the
incident occurred on 26.4.15 at about 8.30 A.M. He deposed that at that time the accused
had came to his house for visiting purposes and after coming he and the accused person
had a verbal argument because of which he had lodged the ejahar in anger. Ext 1 is the
ejahar and Ext 1(1) is his signature.
13 Thus from the evidence of the P.W 1 I find that the informant in his evidence had only
stated that at the time of the incident he had a verbal argument with the accused person
but the informant in his evidence had stated nothing about the accused person scolding him
with obscene languages and breaking the “jeora” of their house and neither had he spoken
about the accused person threatening him in any way and thus contradicting the facts
stated in the F.I.R and bringing a doubt on the entire prosecution story.
14 Further the P.W 1 has deposed in his cross that he has no objection if the accused
person is acquitted. Further the informant in his cross had also admitted that he had lodged
the case because of a misunderstanding.
15 From the discussions made above it transpires that the evidence on record falls short of
proving the allegations against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. Accused therefore
is entitled to acquittal
ORDER
I therefore acquit the accused person –
Kamal Sarmah
of the charges under section 294/427/506 of I.P.C with a direction to set him forth at his
liberty.
Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 19th Day of September 2015.
4
Judicial Magistrate 1stClass.
Sarupathar,Golaghat,
Assam.
Appendix
--------------:PROSECUTION WITNESS:-----------P.W. – 1. – Ruhit Sarmah
--------------: PROSECUTION EXHIBITS:-----------Exhibit 1.- F.I.R
Exhibit 1(1) – Signature of Ruhit Sarmah
--------------: DEFENCE WITNESS:-----------None.
--------------: DEFENCE EXHIBITS:-----------None.
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class.
Sarupathar,Golaghat,
Assam.