Dimbeswar Taye, AJS;
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dibrugarh
G. R. Case No-209/2013
I N THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, DIBRUGARH
DISTRICT- DIBRUGARH
G.R. Case No. 209/2013
Under Section –323/294 of IPC
State of Assam
Versus
Sri Surjya Phukan,
…………… Accused
Present- Mr. Dimbeswar Taye. AJS
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dibrugarh, Assam.
For the prosecution
For the defence
- Nilakhi Dowrah hazarika, Assistant Public prosecutor.
- MRS. Sangeeta Dowrah, Advocate.
Evidence recorded on
- 8/4/2014
Argument Heard on
- 8/4/2014
Judgment delivered
- 8/4/2014
JUDGMENT
1. This case was instituted on a police report, against accused, Sri Surjya Phukan, for the
offence punishable under section 323/294 of IPC.
2. Brief fact of the case: During the month of January 2012 at Lahoal Market waiting
shed some miscreants shouting obscene words used to create nuiscence in the locality.
The conduct of the miscreants created havoc to the peaceful living atmosphere of the
locality. On 24/01/2013 also again the miscreants came there and created disturbance
to the locality. Being annoyed with the situation the people in the locality came out to
1 | Page
Dimbeswar Taye, AJS;
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dibrugarh
G. R. Case No-209/2013
resist the miscreants. Then one Sri Surjya Phukan among the miscreants flared up and
beat Manuj Sonowal. In this connection Manuj Sonowal lodged an ejahar before the
officer in charge of Lahowal Police Station.
3. On receiving the ejahar police registered a case bearing Lahoal Police Case No 8/2013
under section 294/325 IPC and started investigation. After completion of investigation
police submitted charge sheet u/s 294/323 IPC against the accused Sri Surjya Phukan.
4. On the date of appearance in the trial court the necessary documents as required under
section 207 Cr. P.C furnished to the accused. After hearing the parties the particulars
of offence charges under section 294/323 IPC was framed in writing against the
accused and the charges read over and explained to the accused Sri Surjya Phukan to
which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be faced the trial.
5. The prosecution examined as many as one witness in support of the case. In absence of
any incriminating material against the accused, his examination under section 313 Cr.
P.C. dispensed with. The accused did not adduce any evidence.
6. Points for determination:- In the case point of determination will be as follows1. Whether the accused uttered any obscene word to the informant to the
annoyance of informant and public in the vicinity?
2. Whether the accused voluntarily caused hurt to the informant?
7. I have heard the learned Asst. P.P. appearing for the state of Assam, and Counsel for
the accused person. I have gone through the evidence placed before the Court by the
prosecution during examination of witnesses. I have also gone through other materials
available on record.
2 | Page
Dimbeswar Taye, AJS;
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dibrugarh
G. R. Case No-209/2013
DISCUSSION DECISION AND REASONS THEREOFNow I proceed to appreciate the evidence below to see whether the prosecution has
succeeded to bring home the charges levelled against the accused person.
8. The PW-1, Manuj Sonowal testified that he is informant in this case. He has stated that
he knew the accused. He has deposed that on 26/01/2013 hearing sound of a quarrel
from out side he went to the place. He has further deposed that there he met the
accused and thereafter a quarrel took place between them. He has further testified that
due misconception of fact and out of anger he has lodged the case. He exhibited the
ejahar Ext.1. He identified Ext-1(1) signature of him.
During cross examination he deposed for some misconception of fact the
occurrence took place. He has further deposed that he has no objection if the accused
is acquitted.
9. Thus in careful appreciation of the above testimony of PW1, informant cum victim in
this case it appears that the informant and the accused are known to each other. From
the evidence it appears that due to some misconception of fact informant lodged the
FIR. Though Ext.1 ejahar contains facts that constitute offence the victim deposed
nothing incriminatory against the accused. Being victim and informant the PW1 is the
best person to narrate the offence happened against him. As such in view of the
absence of any material the points for determination are decided in negative.
FINDING
10. From the aforesaid discussion and in view of the deposition of PW1 it is held that, the
prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge under section 294/323 of IPC
3 | Page
Dimbeswar Taye, AJS;
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dibrugarh
G. R. Case No-209/2013
against the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
ORDER
11. Accordingly it is held that accused, Surjya Phukan, is not guilty of the offence
punishable under section 294/323 of IPC and set at liberty forthwith.
12. The case is disposed of on contest.
Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 8th day of April 2014.
Typed and Corrected by me
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dibrugarh
4 | Page
Dimbeswar Taye, AJS;
Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Dibrugarh
G. R. Case No-209/2013
ANNEXURE
1. Prosecution Witnesses:P.W. 1:- Sri Manuj Sonowaal,
2. Defence Witnesses:-
None
3. Court Witnesses:- None
4. Prosecution Exhibits:Exbt. 1:- Ejahar,
5. Defence Exhibits:- Nil
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class
Dibrugarh
5 | Page