[1]

IN THE COURT OF THE ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE, JORHAT

Present ;- Mrs. Suchandra Bhattacharjee,

Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat

JUDGMENT IN SESSIONS CASE NO.34(JJ) OF 2013.

G.R.CASE NO. 1235/12.

Committing Magistrate :
Mr. K.K. Sharma
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class,
Jorhat.

The State of Assam,

Vs.

SriNiranjanMajhi
Son of Late PaniramMajhi
Resident of NapamKheroniBasti,
Police Station Mariani,
District Jorhat,Accused person.

APPEARANCE :
Sri Iqbal Ahmed, Addl. Public Prosecutor – for the State.
Sri Amar Ch. Bora, Advocate – for the accused person.

Charge framed under section 302 of I.P.C.

Date of recording evidence : 09.09.13, 23.09.13, 19.10.13, 04.11.13, 18.11.13,

04.12.13, 25.09.14,
Date of recording statement : 22-10-2014,

Date of Argument :03.11.2014.

Date of Judgment : 15.11.2014

1
 [2]

JUDGMENT

1] The prosecution case in brief is that on 23.07.12, informant Susen

Murmur lodged an FIR stating that on the aforesaid day, at about 7.30
a.m. the accused NiranjanMajhiassaulted his daughter MalatiMajhi with
an wooden stool on her head causing grievous injury to her due to which
she died. Thereafter, the accused assaulted one person named
LalitChetia on the way causing grievous injury on his head and then went
to the house of Tutu Majhiand assaulted his mother BinaMajhion her
head,due to which both the aforesaid persons were admitted in Jorhat
Medical College, Jorhat.

2] On the basis of the FIR lodged by the informant a G.D entry

No.322 dated 23.07.12 was entered at Deberapara outpost and
thereafter it was forwarded to Mariani Police Station. After receipt of the
said FIR, Mariani P.S. registered a case vide P.S. case No.70/12, under
section 302/325/307 IPC. Thereafter investigating officer S.I.
MayurjitGogoi took up the investigation of the instant case and after
completion of the investigation he submitted charge sheet against the
accused person under section 302 IPC. While the accused entered into
his appearance the learned court below, committed the case to the
Session Court as the instant case is exclusively triable by Court of
Sessions. On appearance of the accused, before the Court of Sessions,
learned Sessions Judge on getting the grounds of presumption to charge
the accused under section 302 IPC, framed charge under section 302
IPC against the accused and read over and explained the contents of
charge to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
The learned Sessions Judge, after framing charge against the accused,
transferred the instant case to this court for disposal.

3] The prosecution to prove its case examined as many as 10[Ten]

witnesses. The accused was examined under section 313 Cr. P C
wherein he denied to know about any of the incriminating circumstances

2
 [3]

proved against him and also denied to adduce any evidence in his
defence.

4] Points for determination in this case is:

Whether the accused on 23.07.12 committed murder of his his wife

MalatiMajhi, his mother BinaMajhi and another person namely LalitChetia
with the intention of causing their death?

5] I have heard the arguments placed by learned counsel for the both
sides and considered the entire materials available on record.

6] The learned Addl. P.P.,Mr. Iqbal Ahmed submitted that the

prosecution has very clearly established the guilt of the accused under
section 302 IPC. He submitted that the prosecution case is very strongly
supported by direct and circumstantial evidence. He contended that
PW.3 is the eye witness and has led a strongdirect evidence in proof of
the guilt of the accused and other prosecution witness i.e. PW2, PW4
and PW.7 have led circumstantial evidence in proof of the guilt of the
accused. He submitted that there is nothing on record to disbelieve the
evidence led by the aforesaid prosecution witnesses.

7] On the other hand, Mr. Amar Ch. Bora, learned counsel for the
accused, submitted that prosecution utterly failed to prove the guilt of the
accused. He submitted that the prosecution mainly relied on the
evidence of PW.3 and PW.4 but it appears that both the aforesaid
witnesses contradicted their evidence, hence, their evidence is not
believable and cannot be relied on. He further submitted that the
Magistrate who recorded the statement of PW.3 and PW.4 has not been
examined in the instant case.

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF :-

8] To arrive at a judicious decision let me sift the evidence led by the

prosecution witnesses.

9] PW1 Susen Murmur is the father of the deceased. He deposed that

about one year back at about 11 A.M. one of the neighbours of the

3
 [4]

accused person informed him that accused,Niranjan murdered

hisdaughter(wife of the accused) and after getting the information he
went to the house of the accused and found his daughter dead. She was
profusely bleeding. He further deposed that after killing his daughter, the
accused went out to the house of one Tutu Majhi where he killed his
mother BinaMajhi. He also deposed that he came to know that one more
person was killed by the accused on his way. He proved the FIR as
Exbt.1 and Exbt.1(1) as his signature. He deposed thatthe accused and
his daughter used to quarrel sometime.

In his cross examination he stated that the FIR was not written by
himand it was written by their gaonburah. He further stated that he does
not remember the name of the person who informed him about the
incident.

10] PW2 SurenGogoi deposed that the brother of the accused person
namely Ganesh informed him that the accused has killed his wife and
also informed that after killing his wife the accused has gone out on the
road. After getting the information, when he went out to go to the house
of the accused, on the way, he got information that the accused has
assaulted one more person. Then he again got information that accused,
assaulted his mother in the house of one of their relatives. He deposed
that when he was on his way to the house of the accused, he saw that
accused after assaulting the two persons, was trying to flee away and he
was chased by many people and then he was caught by them. He further
deposed, that he along with police went to the place of occurrence, and
therehe saw the deceased lying on the floor and there were grievous
injuries on her head and she was bleeding profusely. He proved his
signature as Exbt.1(2) as writer of the FIR. He deposed that police in his
presence seized one small wooden stool from the place of occurrence.
He proved the Exbt.2 as the seizure list and Exbt.2(1) as his signature.
He proved the wooden stool as Material Exbt.1.

In his cross examination he denied to have not stated before the

police that he got information about the incident from the brother of

4
 [5]

accused person. He also denied that police did not seize any wooden
stool in his presence.

11] PW3 BimanGogoi,deposed that in the last year in the month of

Srawan, when he was in the paddy field, he saw accused coming from
his house, having one bamboo log in his hand and one LalitChetia was
standing near one culvert. Then he saw LalitChetiato callthe accused He
further deposed that the accused after going near to LalitChetia,
suddenly hit LalitChetia with a bamboo log on his head. He further
deposed that the whole incident took place in his presence. He deposed
that LalitChetia, after getting such a strong hit on his head, fell down and
became senseless and started profusely bleeding. Afterward, he came to
know that accused went to the house of Tutu Majhi and he assaulted his
mother there. He deposed that village people chased the accused and
later on he was caught by the village people and handed over to police.
He deposed that he came to know that the accused person also killed his
wife Malati and after coming to know about the said incident,he went to
the house of the accused and saw deceased (Malati) lying on the floor
dead. He deposed that police during the investigation produced him
before the learned Magistrate. He proved his statement before the
Magistrate as Exbt.3and his signature as Exbt.3(1) and Exbt.3(2) .

In his cross examination he denied to have not stated before the

police that he saw the deceased LalitChetia calling accused Niranjan and
thereafter saw accused to hit Lalitchetia on his head with a bamboo log.

12] PW.4 RitulGogoi, deposed that about one year back, he heard
some hue and cry from the house of Tutu Majhi and after hearing the
same, he saw the accused coming out of his house (Tutu Majhi’s house)
with a bamboo log in his hand and saw him jumping over a fencing. After
seeing the same he went to the house of Tutu Majhi and saw BinaMajhi,
mother of the accused lying on the floor having grievous injury on her
head. He further deposed that afterward,he heard that the accused killed
his wife in his own residence and thereafter he also killed LalitChetia who
also belonged to their village. He deposed that, after hearing of the said

5
 [6]

incident he went to the house of accusedand saw his wife lying dead on
the floor in a pool of blood having grievous injury on her head. He proved
his statement before the Magistrate as Ext.4 and Exbt.4(1) and 4(2) as
his signatures.

In his cross examination he denied to have not stated before the

police that he heard hue and cry from the house of Tutu Majhi or to have
not seen the accused with a bamboo log running away from the house of
Tutu Majhi, by jumping over the fencing.

13] PW5SanjeevChetia is the son of deceased LalitChetia. He

deposed that on 23.07.12 at about 10 a.m., gaonburah of their locality,
informed him about the incident and after getting the same he
immediately went to the place of occurrence but after going there he did
not find his father there as he was already taken to Jorhat Civil Hospital.
Then he went to Jorhat Civil Hospital. He further deposed that as the
injury of his father was grievous, therefore, he was taken to Dibrugarh
Medical College but he expired there on 25.07.12. He deposed that
police in his presence held inquest on the dead body of his father. He
proved the inquest report as Ext.5 and his signature as Ext.5(1). He
deposed that the Gaonbura informed him that the accused struck his
father on his head by a wooden log, causing grievous injury on his head
and also informed that accused on the sameday also killed his
(accused’s) wife and mother.
In his cross examination he denied to have not stated before the police
that he got information from Gaonburah that accused killed his father
with a bamboo log or on the same day accused killed his mother and his
wife.

14] PW6SarmilaTapna, deposed that about one year back, she heard
that the accused killed his wife, his mother and one more person.

Defence declined to cross examine her.

6
 [7]

15] PW 7 ProdipHasda, deposed that about one year back in the

month of Shrawan he called the mother of the accused to sow seeds in
his paddy field and therefore she came to his home. At about 8 a.m. he
heard some hue and cry from his house and after hearing the same, he
came to his house and saw the accused running away from there and
saw the mother of the accused, lying on the floor having grievous
bleeding injures on her head. He deposed that later on, he came to know
that she succumbed to her injuries. He further deposed that later on he
came to know that accused on the same day killed his wife and one
more person on his way.

In his cross examination he denied to have not stated before the

police that he did not see the accused to run away from the place of
occurrence.

16] PW8 MayurjitGogoi, deposed that on 23.07.2012,while he was

posted at Deberapara police outpost as in-charge, he received one FIR
from Susen Murmur and entered a G.D. entry vide No.322 dated
23.07.12 and forwarded the same to Mariani P.S. for registering a case
and then took up the investigation of the instant case. He deposed that
during the investigation,he visited the place of occurrence and prepared
sketch map. He proved the sketch map as Exbt.6 and Exbt.6(1) as his
signature. He deposed that he arrested the accused person with the help
of public.He prepared three sketch maps of the three place of
occurrences. He proved Exbt.6as the sketch map prepared in
connection with the murder of wife of the accused and Exbt.6(1) as his
signature. He proved Exbt.7as the sketch map drawn in connection with
assault on LalitChetia and Exnbt.7(1) as his signature. He proved Exbt.8
as the sketch map drawn in connection with the assault on the mother of
the accused, BinaMajhi and Exbt.8(1) as his signature.

He deposed that he recorded the statements of the witnesses in

the place of occurrence. He sent the dead body of deceased MalatiMajhi
for postmortem examination to Jorhat Medical College and sent the
victim BinaMajhi to Jorhat Medical College for treatment and

7
 [8]

LalitChetiato Dibrugarh Medical College for his better treatment. He

proved the inquest report of MalatiMajhias Exbt.9 and Exbt.9(1) as his
signature. He proved Exbt.10 as the inquest report of BinaMajhiand
Exbt.10(1) as his signature. During the investigation he seized some
articles from the place of occurrence. He proved Exbt.2 as seizure list
vide which he seized the wooden stool andExbt.2(2) as his signature. He
proved the wooden stool as Material Exbt.-1. During the investigation he
seized Bamboo log from the house of PradipHasda. He proved the
seizure list as Exbt.11, vide which he seized the bamboo log and
Exbt.11(1) as his signature. He proved Material Exbt.2 as the bamboo
log. He proved Exbt.12 as the seizure list vide which he seized blood
stained gamuchaand Exbt.12(1) as his signature. He proved Material
Exbt.3 as the blood stainedgamucha.

He deposed that he collected inquest report and postmortem report

of deceased LalitChetia from Dibrugarh Medical College and after
collection of all the materials and completion of his investigation he found
sufficient materials against the accused under section 302 IPC and
accordingly he submitted charge sheet under section 302 IPC against
him. He proved Exbt.13 as the charge sheet and Exbt.13(1) as his
signature.

In his cross examination he stated that in his sketch map he has

not mentioned the name of the person in whose connection he prepared
sketch maps. He stated that PW2. SurenGogoi has not stated before him
that he came to know about the incident from the brother of the accused.
He stated that PW.4 RitulGogoi has not stated before him that he heard
some hue and cry from the house of Tutu Majhi and then he saw the
accused NiranjanMajhi jumping over the fencing towards the paddy field.
He deposed that PW.4 has not stated before him that he saw the wife of
the accused lying dead in a pool of blood.

17] PW9 Dr. Tapan Das, deposed that on 23.07.2012 whilehe was
posted at Jorhat Medical college as Demonstrator, on that day with
reference to Deberapara police outpost G.D.Entry No. 318 dated

8
 [9]

23.07.12 dead body of one MalatiMajhi was brought to the hospital. After
observing all the formalities,he performed postmortem examination on
the said dead body, on the same day at about 3.15 p.m. and found the
following.

A female dead body of average built. Body and worn garments

found stained with blood at places. Body and mucus membranes found
pale. Body is cold on touch. Rigor mortis present all over the body.

INJURY:

1] A lacerated injury of 1.5 X 1 cm X brain deep, size present on the

forehead, middle part with surrounding contusion of 8 X 8 cm and
diffusion of the contused area. Underlying frontal bone is found fractured,
with fragmentations and depression of the fragments underlying
meanings found torn and lacerated. Brain is found lacerated and blood
oozing out through the injury.

Blood clots are found adherent to the wound margins which are
resistant to washing with running water.

No ligature mark detected. On dissection neck tissues found

healthy.

Scalp, skull – as described.

All other organs are found healthy.

As per his opinion, death was due to coma as a result of the head injury
sustained by the deceased. The injury described was antemortem and
caused by blunt force impact.

Time since death 6 to 12 hours approximately.

He proved Exbt.14 as the postmortem report of MalatiMaji and

Exbt.14(1) as his signature.

He further deposed,that on24.07.12 he examined the dead body of

BinaMajhi in connection with Mariani PS case No.7/12. After observing

9
 [10]

all the formalities,he performed postmortem examination on the said

dead body, on the same day at about 1.15 p.m. and found the following.

A female dead body of average built. One blood stained surgical

bandage present around the forehead. Black eye present on the right
side. Body found cold on touch. Rigor mortis present all over the body.

INJURIES:

1] A stitch wound of 5 cm length and closed by 7 silk sutures present

on the forehead, right side, extending from the midline towards the outer
aspect of right eye.

2] A stitch wound of 2 cm length and closed by 3 silk sutures,

vertically placed, present in the forehead, middle part, 1 cm to the right of
and below injury No.1.

On dissection, the underlying frontal bone found fractured with

depression of fragments and radiating fractures. Underlying subdural
haemorrhage present in the frontal lobe area.

No ligature mark detected. On dissection neck tissue found

healthy.

All other organs are found healthy.

As per his opinion, death was due to coma as a result of the head
injury sustained by the deceased. The injuries described were
antemortem and caused by blunt force impact and homicidal in nature.

He proved Exbt.15 as the postmortem report of BinaMajhi and

Exbt.15(1) as his signature.

Defence declined to cross examine him.

18] PW.10 Dr. Monoj Kr. Singha, deposed thaton 26.07.2012, whilehe
was working as Associate Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine,
at Assam Medical college, Dibrugarh, with reference to Borbari Police
outpost G.D.Entry No. 715 dated 26.07.12 dead body of one LalitChetia
was brought to the hospital. After observing all the formalities

10
 [11]

heperformed postmortem examination on the said dead body on the

same day at about 2.45 p.m. and found the following.

A male dead body of 60 years old. Swarthy complexion, average

built. Rigor mortis present. Eyes and mouth are partly open.

INJURIES:

1] One lacerated injury present back side of the right ear size 7 X 1
cm X bone deep, stitched with 8 numbers of black nylon.

2] One lacerated injury present over the left eye brow, size 6 cm X 1
cm x bone deep. Stitch with 6 numbers of black nylon.

Scalp, skull, vertebrae - Contusion present both right and left side
temporal area of the scalp.

Membrane - Bilateral subdural haemorrhage present.

Brain and spinal cord – congested. Mark of ligature on neck

dissection - not found.

As per his opinion, death was due to coma resulting from head
injury. All the injuries were antemortem and caused by blunt force
impacts.

Time since death 12 to 24 hours approximately.

He proved Exbt.16 as the postmortem report and 16(1) as his

signature.

In his cross examination he stated that the injuries which were

found on the body of the deceased cannot be sustained by fall.

19] In the instant case, the accused is prosecuted for commission of

murder of three persons, namely MalatiMajhi (wife of the accused),
BinaMajhi (mother of the accused) and one LalitChetia.

20] The perusal of evidence of both the medical officers, i.e. PW.9 and
PW.10 and post mortem report of all the aforesaid persons,i.e. Ext.14,
Ext.15 and Ext.16 clearly reveals that grievous head injuries were found

11
 [12]

on the dead body of all deceased persons, which were homicidal in

nature and which resulted in their death.

21] It further appears after the perusal of entire evidence on record,

that the prosecution case is strongly supported by direct evidence led by
PW.3 BimanGogoi and circumstantial evidence led by PW.2, PW.4 and
PW.7 and there is nothing on the record to disbelieve their evidence.
Perusal of evidence on record clearly reveals, that PW.3 is the eye
witness to the assault committed by the accused on
deceased,LalitChetia. It appears that, PW.3 categorically deposed that
on the date of incident, he saw the accused to hit deceased LalitCheita
with a bamboo log on his head due to which LalitChetia fell down and
became senseless and started profusely bleeding. Perusal of the
statement of PW.3,before the Magistrate,which is proved as Ext.3, in the
instant case,suggests that the evidence led by the aforesaid witness is
totally reliable and trustworthy. It appears that PW.3 has not contradicted
between his evidence before the court and his initial statement given
before the Magistrate in bringing forth the vital fact on record. The
medical evidence on record also appears to corroborate the evidence of
PW.3. Perusal of evidence of doctor (PW10) and the post mortem report
of LalitChetia (Ext.16) clearly reveals that the deceased LalitChetia died
due to the injury sustained on his head.The seizure of bamboo log
(weapon of crime) as revealed from the evidence of investigating officer
(PW.8) further assures the veracity of the evidence of PW.3.

22] Perusal of evidence on record further reveals that the prosecution

case is also strongly supported by circumstantial evidence led by PW.2,
PW.4 and PW.7. It appears that PW.2,SurenGogoivery categorically
brought the fact on record that after getting the information, that the
accused has killed his wife, his mother and one more person, when he
was on his way to the house of the accused, he saw the accused trying
to flee away and also saw the accused being chased by many people
and thereafter saw the accused being caught by village people. PW.4
RitulGogoivery specifically deposed, that he saw the accused coming out

12
 [13]

from the house of Tutu Majhi with a bamboo log in his hand and also saw
him jumping over a fencing and after seeing the accused running away
from there, when he went to the house of Tutu Majhi ,he saw the mother
of the accused lying on the floor having grievous injury on her head,
which was profusely bleeding. The perusal of statement of PW.4 under
section 164 Cr P C reveals that the aforesaid witness has almost
corroborated the same and has not contradicted in bringing forth the vital
fact on record. PW7 ProdipHasda, deposed the after hearing hue and cry
from his home, when he went to his home he saw the accused running
away from there and then he saw the mother of the accused lying on the
floor having grievous bleeding injuries on her head.

23] Though, the perusal of evidence of PW.4 and PW.7 suggests

contradiction in their evidence, but perusal of preliminary statement of
PW.4 and PW.7 before the investigating officer under section 161 Cr P C
clarifies the said contradiction. It appears that PW.4 RitulGogoi deposed
that he saw the accused running out of the house of Tutu Majhi and
when he went to the house of Tutu Majhi he saw the mother of the
accused in the house of Tutu majhi. Whereas PW.7 ProdipHasda
appears to have contradicted PW4, it appears that PW.7 deposed that
he saw the accused running away from his house and saw the mother of
the accused lying grievously injured in his house.But perusal of the
preliminary statement of the aforesaid witness before investigating officer
under section 161 Cr P C, reveals that ProdipHasda (PW.7) and Tutu
Majhi is the same person. RitulGogoi(PW.4) in his statement under
section 161 Cr P C clearly stated that he saw the accused running away
from the house of Tutu alias PradipHasda.

24] It appears that both the aforesaid witnesses i.e. PW.4 and PW.7
led a very strong incriminating chain of circumstances, in proof of the
guilt of the accused. Though it appears that none of the aforesaid
witnesses saw the accused to kill the deceased persons but both the
aforesaid witnesses saw the accused running away from the place of
occurrence (house of ProdipHasda @ Tutu (PW.7) and immediately

13
 [14]

thereafter saw the mother of the accused lying on the place of

occurrence, having grievous injury on her head. The seizure of bamboo
log which clearly appears from the entire evidence on record to be the
weapon of crime,from the house of ProdipHasda (PW.7) further
strengthens the chain of incriminating circumstances, against the
accused.

25] The perusal of statement of accused under section 313 Cr P C.

further reveals, that the accused has nowhere denied any of the
incriminating circumstances proved against him. The statement of the
accused, reveals that, he simply denied to know or denied to say
anything about any of the incriminating circumstance proved against
him.An accused gets fair opportunity under section 313 Cr P C to explain
the incriminating circumstances, proved against him, but in the instant
case the accused totally failed to explain any of the incriminating
circumstances proved against him. Though it is a settled principle of law
that the prosecution has to stand on its own feet to prove its case but at
the same time, failure of the accused to explain the circumstances
proved against him, definitely does not go in his favour.

26] In view of the foregoing evidence on record, I am of the opinion

that the prosecution by adducing reliable direct and circumstantial
evidence, successfully proved the guilt of the accused under section 302
IPC. Hence, the accused NiranjanMajhi is convicted under section 302
IPC.

HEARING ON SENTENCE

27] Accused NiranjanMajhi is produced from jail. I have heard him

on imposition of sentence on him. The accused pleaded to deal him with
leniency. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to
extend any leniency to the aforesaid accused person. Hence, the
accused NiranjanMajhi is sentenced to undergo LIFE IMPRISONMENT
and also to pay a fine of Rs.6,000/ [Rupees SixThousand], in default

14
 [15]

further RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT for 6(six)months. Fine amount, if

realized shall be paid to the victims.

28] Keeping in view the materials on record, I am of the opinion that

it is a fit case to award compensation to the victims under the provision
of section 357 A Cr pc, as such send a copy of this judgment to the
District Legal Service Authority, to determine the quantum of
compensation to be awarded to the victims.

29] Furnish a copy of judgment free of cost to the accused person.

30] Send a copy of this judgment to the District Magistrate, Jorhat.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 15thday ofNovember,
2014.

Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat.

Dictated & corrected by me,

Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat.

Typed & transcribed by:

(Sri Lalit Hazarika),
Stenographer

15
 [16]

A N N E X U R E:
List of witnesses from prosecution side:
PW,1 : Sri Susen Murmur
PW.2 :Sri SurenGogoi
PW3 :Sri BimanGogoi
PW4 : Sri RitulGogoi
PW5 : Sri SanjeevChetia
PW.6 : Smt. SarmilaTapna
PW7 : Sri PradipHasda
PW8 : S.I. MayurjitGogoi
PW9 : Dr. Tapan Das
PW10 : Dr. Monoj Kr. Singha.
List of witnesses from defence side :
Nil.
List of witnesses from the side of Court:
Nil
List of documents from prosecution side:
Ext.1 :FIR
Ext.2 : Seizure list.
Ext.3 : Statement u/s 164 Cr P C.
Ext.4 : Statement u/s 164 Cr P C.
Ext.5 : Inquest Report of LalitChetia
Ext.6 : Sketch Map.
Ext.7 :Sketch Map
Ext.8 : Sketch Map.
Ext.9 : Inquest Report of MalatiMajhi
Ext.10 : Inquest Report of BinaMajhi
Ext.11 : Seizure List.
Ext.12 : Seizure List.
Ext.13 : Charge Sheet.
Ext. 14 : Post mortem report of MalatiMajhi

16
 [17]

Ext.15 : Post mortem report of BinaMajhi

Ext. 16 : Post mortem report of LalitChetia.

List of Exhibits from defence side :

Nil.
List of Exhibits from the side of court :
Nil.

Addl. Sessions Judge, Jorhat.

17
[18]

18