(1) G.R Case No.1246/2011
Present:
IN THE COURT OF CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE
LAKHIMPUR, NORTH LAKHIMPUR
J. Borah
Chief Judicial Magistrate
Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur
GR Case No: 1246/2011
U/s 323/34, IPC
State of Assam
-Vs-
(1)Md. Jahur Ali and
(2)Md. Abdul Jalil
Date of offence explanation
Date of recording evidence
Date of argument
Date of judgment
Advocate appeared in the case:
: 07.04.2015
: 03.07.2015
: 10.07.2015
: 10.07.2015
: Accused persons
Mr. B. Borah, learned Addl. P.P. for the State of Assam
Mr. K. Alam, learned Advocate for the accused persons
1.
J U D G M E N T
The prosecution case, in brief, is that Musstt. Manuwara Begum, the informant lodged an ejahar with the In-Charge, Nowboicha Police Out Post on
20.09.2011 informing that on 15.09.2011 at about 5.30 in the evening in absence of her husband the accused persons namely, Md. Jahur Ali, Md. Abdul Jalil and Md.
Samir Ali came to their house and ran after her son to assault and when the informant resisted the said accused persons they assaulted her physically causing injury to her.
So, the informant prayed for taking necessary action against the aforesaid accused persons.
2. The Nowboicha Police Out-Post received the ejahar and made GDE
No. vide 314, dated 20.09.2011 and forwarded the ejahar to the Officer-In-Charge,
North Lakhimpur Police Station. The North Lakhimpur Police Station received the case and registered vide N.L.P.S Case No.544/2011, u/s 336/325/34, IPC. The North
Lakhimpur Police Station also investigated the case and having found the case u/s
323, IPC against the accused persons namely- Md. Jahur Ali, Md. Abdul Jalil and Md.
Samir Ali laid the charge sheet before the Court for trial.
3. My learned Predecessor-in-office took the cognizance u/s 323, IPC against the accused persons namely- Md. Jahur Ali, Md. Abdul Jalil and Md. Samir
Ali, and then issued summons to the said accused persons. Accused- Md. Jahur Ali and Md. Abdul Jalil, hereinafter called the accused persons, appeared in this case

(2) G.R Case No.1246/2011 and they were furnished copy. Since, the accused Md. Samir Ali died so the case was abated against him vide order dated 03.01.2015. The particulars of the offence u/s 323/34, IPC were read over and explained to the accused persons to which both of them pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove its case against the accused persons, examined only one witness namely -
5.
(1) Musstt. Manuwara Begum @ Khatoon
As there found no incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution witness against the accused persons, so the accused persons were not examined u/s 313, Cr.P.C.
6.
7.
Heard argument for both sides.
Points for Determination:
Decisions and reasons thereof:
8. In this prosecution case P.W-1 Musstt. Manuwara Begum @ Khatoon is the informant as well as the alleged injured, so she is the prime witness in this case. Now, let us see the evidence of P.W-1 Musstt. Manuwara Begum @ Khatoon available on record.
9. P.W-1 Smti Manuwara Begum @ Khatoon has stated in her evidence that the occurrence took place 5 years ago and due to wrath she lodged the ejahar against the accused persons. P.W-1 has also stated that there was misunderstanding with the accused persons which led her to lodge the ejahar against them. P.W-1 has also stated that she lodged the ejahar by putting her thumb impression on the same.
In her cross-examination P.W-1 has stated that the accused did not assault to her nor did anything. P.W-1 has also stated that it was mere misunderstanding with the accused persons which led her to lodge the ejahar against the accused persons. P.W-1 has also stated in her cross that now she has no allegation against the accused persons.
10. Thus, the scrutiny of evidence of P.W-1 shows that she has incriminated the accused persons in no way. P.W-1 has categorically stated in her evidence that accused persons neither assaulted her nor did anything, rather it was

(3) G.R Case No.1246/2011 mere misunderstanding between her and the accused. It is also reiterated by P.W-1 that it was mere wrath for which she lodged the case against the accused persons.
So, the evidence of P.W-1 is clear that she has adduced evidence not incriminating the accused persons. There found no evidence adduced by P.W-1 that the accused persons voluntarily caused hurt to her. So, the ingredients as required u/s 323/34,
IPC are not available in the evidence of P.W-1.
11. Being the said situation of the prosecution witness it is found that the prosecution case is without any merit.
12. The prosecution, thereby, has failed to prove its case u/s 323/34, IPC against the accused persons beyond all reasonable doubt.
13.
14.
Held the accused persons are not guilty u/s 323/34, IPC.
The accused persons are accordingly, acquitted and set at liberty.
The bail bond stands cancelled and the bailor is discharged of all 15. liabilities.
16.
17.
July, 2015.
The case is disposed of.
Given under my hand and seal of this court on this the 10th day of
( J. Borah)
Chief Judicial Magistrate
Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur
A P P E N D I X
(1) Musstt. Manuwara Begum @ Khatoon: P.W-1
Nil
Nil
DEFENCE EXHIBITS:
Nil
( J. Borah)
Chief Judicial Magistrate
Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur