IN THE COURT OF THE SUB-DIVISIONAL JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE (S) AT DIBRUGARH

GR No.347/11

U/S 447/294/325/326 IPC

State

-vs-

Ritu Gogoi…………….…Accused.

Appearance:-

Smt. P Gogoi, APP, for the prosecution &

Subal Duarah,M P Todi, advocate for the accused.

Evidence recorded on 03-12-2011,

20-01-2012,

29-02-2012,

15-09-2012,

10-11-2012,

20-11-2012

21-12-2012.

Argument heard on 08-01-2013,14-03-13

Judgment delivered on 14-03-2013.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The genesis of the prosecution case in brief is that on 17-02-11 at 11:30 p.m. the accused was shouting filthy words addressing to the husband of the informant and her husband came out of his residence. The accused inflicted her husband on his head and right leg knee with an iron rod causing grievous hurt to him and he was hospitalized for 15 days at Assam Medical College & Hospital (AMCH) for better treatment but his condition was not out of dangerand to this effect informant, Smti.Joshoda Dutta lodged an ejahar (FIR) to the Officer-In-Charge (OC), Tingkhong Police Station (PS).

2. After receiving the above ejahar OC, Saruj Kumar Hazarika, Tingkhong PS registered a case no.23/11 u/s 447/294/325/307 IPC and directed ASI, Umesh Mech to take up the investigation and after completion of which Investigating Officer (IO) submitted charge-sheet against the accused person u/s 447/294/325/307 IPC.

3. Accused was summoned to appear before this court. After his appearance, he was allowed to go on bail. Copy was furnished to him. After hearing the parties a charge was framed against the accused u/s 447/294/325/326 IPC which was read over and explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty but claimed to be tried. It may be mentioned here that as per order of Hon’ble Additional District & Sessions Judge vide his order in Sessions Case no.77/11 held the charge of the accused u/s 447/294/326/325 IPC and accordingly charge was framed against the accused Ritu Gogoi u/s 447/194/325/326 IPC. Hence the case.

4. To prove the case prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses including the informant and IO. The statement of the accused was recorded u/s 313 of Cr.PC. His plea was of total denial of the allegation made against him by the prosecution. However the accused declined to adduce his defence. Argument was heard as advanced and canvassed by the advocate appearing for the parties including APP.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

5. Whether the accused on 17-02-11 at 11:30 p.m. entered into the compound of the informant and thereby committed an offense punishable u/s 447 IPC?

6. Whether the accused on 17-02-11 at night uttered filthy words to the informant’s husband and thereby committed an offense punishable u/s 294 IPC?

7. Whether the accused person on 17-02-11at night voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the informant’s husband and thereby committed an offense punishable u/ 325 IPC?

8. Whether the accused person on 17-02-11 at night voluntarily caused grievous hurt to the informant’s husband by means of dangerous weapon (iron rod) and thereby committed an offense punishable u/ 326 IPC?

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASON THEREOF

9. The allegation made against the accused, Ritu Gogoi by PW-1, Joshoda Dutta is that on 17-02-11 at 11:30 p.m. the accused was shouting filthy words addressing to her husband and her husband came out of his residence. The accused inflicted her husband on his head and right leg knee with an iron rod causing grievous hurt to him and he was hospitalized for 15 days at Assam Medical College & Hospital (AMCH) for better treatment but his condition was not out of danger and to this effect she lodged an ejahar to the OC, Tingkhong PS. Ext-1 is FIR and Ext-1(1) her signature. The evidence given by PW-1 has been supported by PW-2, Gunajit Dutta, stating that he rushed to the spot leaving his dinner following a commotion from the residence of PW-1 as the accused inflicted his elder brother on his leg and head with an iron rod. He was hospitalized at AMCH. On 17-02-11 at 10:30 p.m. there was a scuffle between Jitu Dutta and the accused as witnessed by PW-3, Babu Ahmed. The accused inflicted PW-7 on his head with an iron rod for which PW-7 was hospitalized at AMCH, Dibrugarh. PW-4, Akshay Dutta deposed that on 17-02-11 the accused Ritu Gogoi was chasing after Bhupen Dutta making hue and cry in an exaggerated condition. The accused could not inflict iron rod on Bhupen Dutta but he inflicted the iron rod on PW-7 causing head and leg injury. Injured was PW-7 was shifted to AMCH, Dibrugarh. PW-5, Girish Baruah stated that PW-7 was hospitalized at AMCH while he was dashed against the stranded truck for bringing ‘Agarbatti’ machine. The injured was in a drunken mood. According to PW-6, Harun Ahmed a man was injured while his truck was parked on a small road. PW-7, Jitu Dutta briefed in his evidence that when the accused, Ritu Gogoi on 17-02-11 at 11:30 p.m. making hue and cry addressing to his uncle, Bhupen Dutta, he tried to console the accused. The accused then briskly inflicted on his head and leg with a rod causing him injury toppling him to the ground and he was lying unconscious on the ground. He was first hospitalized at Tingkhong P.H.C. and thereof to AMCH, Dibrugarh. He was hospitalized at AMCH for 14 days. On examination of PW-7, PW-8, Dr.Pitanbar Tanti found the injury lacerated grievous injury with profusing blood from the right leg. Ext-2 is Medical report and Ext-2(1) his signature. PW-9, Umesh Chandra Mech, on 17-02-11 he was serving as ASI at Tingkhong PS. On that day on the basis of the ejahar filed by the PW-1 the OC, Tingkhong PS registered a case directing him to investigate it and accordingly he investigated the case. During his investigation he interrogated the informant as well as the injured person and the injured was referred to AMCH for better treatment. He visited the place of occurrence along with staff, prepared sketch map of it and recorded statement of witnesses. He could not arrest the accused person involved with the case. The accused himself appeared before the police station. On being interrogated the accused having sufficient incriminating material he was arrested. As the offences were bail-able he was released on bail. He was sent to the court on 19-02-10. After collecting the medical report he submitted the case dairy to the OC, Tingkhong PS. SI, Jatin Dutta submitted charge-sheet against the accused. Ext-3 is sketched map, Ext-3(1) his signature, Ext-4 is charge-sheet and Ext-4(1) is the signature of Jatin Dutta which he identified. PW-7 in his cross-examination stated that the incident had taken place on a village road near to the residence of babul Ahmed and his uncle residence. The accused have not uttered any obscene words to him. He was enjoying television at home and he did not accompany the accused at that night although he had a habit of taking liquor at night. He came out of his house and noticed the stranded truck of Babul Ahmed following hue and cry thereat and it was noticed by Babul Ahmed and his wife PW-1. He failed to disclose material fact to the police. The injury sustained by PW7 was of lacerated injury caused by a blunt weapon as he was under the cover of alcohol drunken mood. No fracture was reported. PW-8 also did not clarify fracture of the injured person PW-7 without x-ray or Sonography. PW-1 as being eye-witness could not confirm whether the accused was caused grievous hurt by the accused as her husband also has a habit of drinking at night. She supported no medical report of the treatment of her husband at AMCH, Dibrugarh. PW-2 also could not clarify as to the distance of her residence from his residence. He made a suggestion that the PW-7 might have caused injury by hitting against hard substance. According to PW-3 he also could not clarify that the incident had taken place in-front of the house of Babul Ahmed. He did not know whether the accused was in a drunken mood or not. PW-4 denied of the incident in his cross-examination. PW-7 sustained injury dashing against the stranded truck at night. It is a fact that the incident had taken place due to the stranded loaded truck which was unloaded by the labourers of the truck. In the entirety of the evidence from PW-1 to PW-9 the IO could have examined the labourers of the stranded truck while they were unloading the ‘Agarbatti’ Machine. The allegation made by PW-1 is that the PW-7 while he was coming out of his residence hearing commotion from the residence of his uncle Bhupen Dutta the accused inflicted him with an iron rod causing his head and leg injury. The medical report of PW-7 treated by PW-8 was of lacerated and grievous injuries. As stated by PW-1 the incident had taken place in-front of the house of the PW-3 but PW-3 stated of it that the accused PW-7 might have dashed against his stranded truck as the road was narrow. When the laborers were unloading the machine from the truck, PW-5 was sleeping in the truck and he stated that a person injured himself dashing against his parked truck in a drunken mood. PW-1 being the eye-witness stated of the incident on the village road and the PW-3 also supported it that the incident had taken place in front of the house of One Bhupen Dutta but he was not examined by the prosecution. None of the labourers who were unloading the ‘Agarbatti’ Machine on the truck were examined due to which the prosecution case is not fatal. It is a fact that the incident had taken place on the village road and the injury sustained by PW-7 cannot be discarded but due to want of any Medical certificate from the AMCH for the hospitalization of PW-7 for 14 days can be discarded. It is undoubtedly proved by PWs that the alleged incident had taken place as alleged by PW-1. There was a bull-fighting between PW-7 and the accused in a drunken mood while PW-7 was dragging the accused to his house and the accused dragged the PW-7 to the side of the stranded truck as a result of which the PW-1 sustained injury and his injury cannot be termed as grievous injury and it was of simple injury caused by the accused to PW-7. In order to meet up some grudge under the cover of drunken mood it was materialized. Likewise both the accused and PW-7 was drunkard and they used to drink at night. It is a common at rural area when a man drunken he used to murmur some sort of filthy words addressingwhoever he confronts. The accused confronted with the PW-7 and the PW-7 got angry with the behavior of the accused for which he dragged the accused to his house out of his gate for which the accused voluntarily caused hurt to PW-7 as supported by PW-2, PW-1 and 3. Thus the accused committed an offence u/s 323 IPC instead of u/s 447/294/325/326 IPC. The accused person is heard on the point of sentence but no benefit can be accorded to him as invoked u/s 360 of Cr.P.C.

ORDER

11. Prosecution has been able to prove its case against the accused u/s 323 IPC instead of u/s 447/294/325/326 IPC, beyond any reasonable doubt. I find him guilty of offence u/s 323 IPC. I sentence him to undergo one year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- (Rs.One thousand) in default of which to undergo two months simple imprisonment. His bail bond stands cancelled. Let a copy of this judgment be given to the accused free of cost.

Sealed, signed and delivered this judgment by me on this 14th day of March, 2013 at Dibrugarh.

SDJM

pg. 1