(u/s 341/ 323 of IPC) Acquitted (Compromise/Contested) JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON 31/10/2011
JUDGMENT OF THE CASE No. GR 843/10 The State 1.Umesh Saikia PRESENT : SRI PRANAB SARMA,AJS JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE 1st CLASS DARRANG :MANGALDAI Date of Evidence :26-10-10,20-11-10,07-03-11,29-08-11 Date of Argument : 29/10/2011 Date of Judgment : 31/10/2011 ADVOCATEs APPEARED : For the State :Ms. S.S.Yasmin For the Accused :Md.A Rahim JUDGMENT
The brief fact leading to the prosecution of above named accused person, is that on 27/02/2010 at about 1 p.m when the cattle of the accused person named above entered into the field of black pulse (Kola Mah)grown by the informant and ate up them , on seeing this, victim Jadumoni Saikia got out the cattle from the pulse field and taken them to the river side. The accused then restrained Jadumoni and beaten up mercilessly. When the informant’s wife came to save Jadumoni ,the accused also beaten up his mother also. As a result both of them sustained injuries.
An F.I.R was lodged at Sipajhar Police Station. Ext.1 is the
Ejahar and Ext.1(1) is the signature of the informant. Ext.5 is the charge sheet. A case was registered by Police u/s 341/323 IPC .
The accused person, in response to the process issued to them,
appeared before the court. Particulars of offences u/s 341/323 of I.P.C are read over and explained to the accused to which pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried, after copies were handed over and hearing both sides on 20/08/2010.
The prosecution side has examined seven witnesses in support
of its case including IO and MO. The defense case is total denial and adduced no evidence in defence. Seen the injury report . The accused is examined u/s 313 CrPC. Heard arguments of both sides. THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATIONS
Whether the accused wrongfully restrained the victim Jadumoni Saikia at the river side?
Whether hurt was caused to Jadumoni and his mother as alleged in the FIR?
DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF
To arrive at a just decision on the points referred above, let it be
examined the evidence on the record. The prosecution side, to establish the culpability of the accuseds, has examined seven (7) witnesses
1. Budheshwar Saikia 2. Jadumoni Saikia 3. Gamvir Deka 4. Lakhsman Deka 5. Dr.B.Hazarika Saikia 6. S.I Mahendra Sarma 7. Dr. Pramod Deka
I have gone through the same carefully.
Pw1 is the complainant. From his deposition it is clear that on
the day of incidence pw1 was not present. He was out of station. He is not an eye witness. In chief examination pw2, the one of the victim Jadumoni Deka stated the same thing as described in the Ejahar. In cross examination Victim Jadumoni Deka told that though there were many people here and there in the place of occurrence only Lakhsman Deka had witnessed the incident. In cross also said that his mother had not seen the incident. But interestingly prosecution did not placed her as witness. All prosecution witnesses remained silent regarding injury of the other victim Damayanti Deka. But in the Ejahar, complainant himself stated that Damayanti was seriously injured by the accused. In chief the only eye witness pw4, Lakhsman had said that on that day at the time of incident the accused only keep on hugging the victim Jadumoni. Also Pw4 clearly stated that the accused had not beaten up Damayanti as stated in the FIR. On the examination of Medical officer ,she stated about the injury of Smti
Damayanti Saikia and silent about main victim Jadumoni Saikia. But inexamination, prosecution witnesses stated that no injury took place against Damayanti .
From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses considered in to
to, it is amply clear that the there is only one independent eye witness Lakhsman Deka. He stated that Damayanti Saikia was not hurt by the accused. But her injury report was furnished by MO. On the same hand Lakhsman stated that no assault or hurt was caused by the accused against the victim Jadumoni Saikia. Only he saw that both accused and victim Jadumoni Pulled and hugged each other. Also whatever complainant had described about the incident in the FIR were not corroborated by any other pws. Many contradictions arose between their statements. No supporting evidences were there. Prosecution totally failed to established the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. .
Upon careful consideration of the materials on record and oral
testimony of the pws, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that the charges u/s 341/ 323 of IPC is not established.
The accused person Sri Umesh Saikia , is therefore acquitted of
charges u/s 341/ 323 of IPC and set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond is cancelled and Bailer is discharged.
Dictated under the seal of the court and bearing my signature
(PRANAB SARMA, AJS)
COMPOSITION : Equivalent to Rabeprazole(As enteric coated pellets)Domperidone(As sustained release pellets) DESCRIPTION : Rabeprazole belongs to a class of antisecretory compounds (substituted benzimidazole proton-pump inhibitors) that do not exhibit anticholinergic orhistamine H2 -receptor antagonist properties, but suppress gastric acid secretion by inhibiting the gastric H+/K + ATPase
Influence of Parenting Styles on Junior Secondary School Students' Performance in Social Studies in ilorin Emirate AbdulRaheem Yusuf, Ayorinde Samuel Agbonna Hamdalat Taiwo Yusuf Department of Arts and Social Sciences Education, Abstract The purpose of the study was to investigate the influence of parenting styles on junior secondary school students' performa