(1)

District- Dhemaji, Assam.

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS.

GR Case No- 808/2013 (GMK).
U/S 341/323/336/294/34 IPC.
STATE
-Vs-
1. Smti. Hima Sonowal.
2. Smti. Archana Sonowal.
….....accused.
PRESENT: U.BORAH, AJS
Judicial Magistrate 1st Class.

Appearance:
1. Mr. NJ. Gogoi, learned APP for the state.
2. Mr. B. Gogoi, learned advocate for the accused.

Evidence recorded on: 12/05/14; 20/10/14; 06/01/15; 01/12/15; 16/06/16

and on 19/12/16.
Argument heard on: 19/04/2017.
Judgment delivered on: 03/05/2017.

JUDGMENT
1. The prosecution case in brief as revealed from the FIR filed by informants
Smti. Arnali Bora is that on 06-09-2013 at about 6-00 pm, when she was
staying on the road in front of her house along with her minor niece,
accused Smti. Hima Sonowal, who was coming on foot from the side of
Borola, without having any reason started to throw stones on her. As such
the informant received injury on her lower ankle joint of right leg. Then
the accused Smti. Hima Sonowal stuck on her face with a thin rod and as
a result the informant got injury on her nose. It was bleeding. It is also
mentioned in the FIR that on 31-07-2013 at the van-stand of Gogamukh
and on 05-09-2013 at the house of Lat Gaonburah of Horiani at Vill-

Page 1 of 10
 (2)

Mohoricamp, accused Smti. Archana Sonowal scolded the informant in

obscene language and thereby defamed her in public.
2. Receiving the FIR, Officer-in-Charge of Gogamukh PS registered a case
vide GMK PS Case No-161/13 U/S 341/336/325/294/34 IPC. The IO
investigated the case and finally submitted Charge-sheet against the
accused Smti. Hima Sonowal and Smti. Archana Sonowal U/S
341/323/336/294/34 of IPC. Along with the charge sheet, the IO sent one
sketch map, one medical reports and one bail bond.
3. On appearance, accused were granted regular bail. Copy was furnished to
the accused and particulars of offence U/S 341/323/336/294/34 of IPC
was explained. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
4. During trial, prosecution side examined as many as 7 witnesses. They all
were dully cross examined by the defence and discharged. At the close of
prosecution evidence, accused persons were examined U/S 313 CrPC.
Defence side declined to adduce evidence.
5. I have heard the points of argument put forwarded by learned APP for
the State as well as the learned Advocate appeared for the accused
persons.
6. POINT FOR DETERMINATION
(I) Whether the accused Smti. Hima Sonowal on 06-09-2013 at about
6-00 pm, at the road in front of the house of the informant Smti.
Arnali Bora, of Vill- Mohoricamp, PS- Gogamukh, District- Dhemaji,
Assam voluntarily caused simple hurt to the said informant and
thereby committed an offence punishable U/S 323 IPC.
(II) Whether the accused Smti. Hima Sonowal on the same day at the
same time and place threw stones so rashly and negligently as to
endanger human life or the personal safety of the said informant
or her niece and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S
336 IPC?
(III) Whether the accused Smti. Archana Sonowal on or about 31-07-
2013 at the van-stand of Gogamukh and on 05-09-2013 at the
house of Lat Gaonburah of Horiani at Vill- Mohoricamp wrongfully

Page 2 of 10
 (3)

restrained the said informant and thereby committed an offence

punishable U/S 341 IPC?
(IV) Whether the accused Smti. Archana Sonowal on or about 31-07-
2013 at the van-stand of Gogamukh and on 05-09-2013 at the
house of Lat Gaonburah of Horiani at Vill- Mohoricamp to the
annoyance of the informant and other, did any obscene act by
uttering any obscene word in or near any public place and thereby
committed an offcence punishable U/S 294 IPC.

DISCUSSION DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF:

7. Now let me proceed with the evaluation of the evidence placed on record
by the witnesses in support of the charges. For convenience of
appreciation, let me asses the important information deposed to by the
witnesses.
8. Informant Smti. Arnali Bora was examined as PW-1. She has deposed that
she knows both the accused. On 06-09-2013, at about 6 pm, when she
was on the road with her niece and watching a Minabazar. Accused Sri
Seema Sonowal caught her hairs and threw her on the ground and hit on
her leg with a stone. She was injured. Accused Seema threw stones on
her and tried to pierce her eye with a sharp weapon and instead hit on
her nose. It was bleeding. She was injured below the knee of her right
leg. Accused Smti. Archana Sonowal on 31-07-2013 abused her in filthy
language near Gogamukh van stand. She did not inform police about the
incident. Again on 05-09-2013, accused Sri Archana Sonowal, while she
was sitting in Devison Doley’s House, pointed her out and again used
filthy language against her and threatened to assault her. On 07-08-2013,
when she was waiting for going to her working place, accused Smti.
Seema Sonowal spitted on her and pulled her hairs and assaulted her.
She gave the ejahar on 07-09-2013 as because she was seriously injured
and hurt on 06-09-2013. Police caused her medical examination.
During cross examination, she has stated that it is not a fact that
she did not state before the police that the accused beat her with stone
or that the accused tried to pierce her eyes with a sharp instrument but

Page 3 of 10
 (4)

hit her nose. It is not a fact that she did not state before the police that
the accused persons misbehaved her with filthy language and also not
stated before the police about the incident of 07-08-2013. It is not a fact
that she has given false evidence against the accused. It is not a fact that
for an illegal love relation with the husband of accused Smti. Seema
Sonowal, she lodged this case falsely against the accused.
9. PW-2, Sri Devicharan Doley has deposed that he knows the informant as
well as both the accused. The incident was taken place about one year
back. At about 3 pm, informant came to his house. Accused Smti.
Archana Sonowal scolded the informant in obscene language by calling
her ‘randi’ in front of his house. He sent the informant into his house.
Scolding the informant in obscene language, accused Smti. Archana left
the place. On the following evening, when he was arriving from
Gogamukh, he saw blood-stain on the leg of the informant. The informant
told him that accused Smti. Hima Sonowal had hurt her. He took the
informant to Gogamukh PHC. Police asked him about the incident.
During cross examination, he has stated that his house is situated
nearby the house of the informant. It is not a fact that due to some
personal enmity, the informant has filed this case falsely against the
accused. It is not a fact that accused Smti. Hima Sonowal did not cause
hurt on the leg of the informant. It is not a fact that being a neighbor of
the informant, he has deposed falsely against the accused.
10. PW-3, Smti. Moni Borah has deposed that the informant is her sister-in-
law. She knows both the accused. The incident was taken place on 06-09-
2013. It was in the evening hours. She was at her gateway. The
informant was also there along with her. At that time accused Smti. Hima
Sonowal was coming in front of their house. At that time one minabazar
was going on there in front of their house. The informant was taking the
minor girl of her brother. There was one iron thing in the hands of
accused Smti. Hima Sonowal. Smti. Hima Sonowal wanted to stabbed on
the informant and then hit the nose of the informant and as a result it
was bleeding. Then accused Smti. Hima Sonowal threw one stone toward
the informant. The stone fall on the left leg of the informant. Blood came

Page 4 of 10
 (5)

from the wound. The informant fall on the ground. The minor girl also fall
on the ground. The surrounded people gathered. Then, the brother and
the village-headman took her to the medical. Police asked him about the
incident.
During cross-examination, he has deposed that she lives in the same
house with the informant. It is not a fact that due to personal enmity, the
informant filed this case falsely against the accused.
11. PW-4, Smti. Lalima Bora Das has deposed that she knows the informant
as well as the accused persons. The incident was taken place about 1½
years back. At about 5 pm, when she was going to bring her charger-light
from her rented house nearby the house of the informant, she saw that
accused Smti. Hima Sonowal hurt on the face of the informant by taking
stone. Then gaonburah Devicharan Doley came out, and the nearby
people gathered. The informant was taken to Medical. She did not saw
accused Smti. Archana Sonowal at the place of occurrence but heard that
she threw stone on the leg of the informant at the house of the
Gaonburah.
During cross examination, she has stated that at the place of occurrence
she met the Gaonburah Debicharan, his wife, Smti. Namita Pegu, Smti.
Pinki Sinha etc. it is not a fact that she has deposed falsely as she has
come to the Court with the informant. It is not a fact that the informant
received injury by falling herself.
12. PW-5, Dr. Dharma Knt. Mili has deposed that on 06-09-2013, at about 7-
10 pm, he examined Smti. Arnali Bora, aged about 28 years on police
requisition on being escorted by WPC Dipika Phukan of Gogamukh PS.
Upon examination he found: - (1) abrasion in face in between left nostril
of upper lip of size ½ cm. Shape of injury was round. Color in red. (2)
Oozing of blood from the left nostril from the abrasion of the left wall of
left nostril. Size 2 mm. Shape round. Color red.
In his opinion both the injuries were caused by blunt object and the age
of injury was within 18 hours. Type of injury was simple. Ext-2 is his
medical report. Ext-2(1) is his signature.

Page 5 of 10
 (6)

During cross examination, he has stated that he has not mentioned any
case reference in his medical report.
13. PW-6, ASI Ananda Borah has deposed that on 07-09-2013, he was on
duty as sheristerdar of Gogamukh Police Station. On that day, on the
basis of an FIR filed by informant Smti. Arnali Bora, Officer-in-Charge of
the PS registered a case vide GMK PS Case No. 161/13 U/S
341/325/336/294/34 IPC. During his investigation, he visited the place of
occurrence and prepared one sketch map. He recorded the statement of
the witnesses. He collected the medical report. He released both the
accused persons on bail since he found the offences to be bail-able. On
completion of his investigation, Officer-in-Charge SI Subhan Das
submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused U/S 341/323/336/294/34
IPC. Ext- 3 is the sketch map. Ext-3(1) is his signature. Ext-3 is the
charge sheet, Ext-3(1) is te signature of SI Subhan Das which he could
recognize.
During cross examination, he has stated that PW-1 Smti. Arnali Bora did
not state before him that accused Smti. Hima Sonowal threw stone to her,
pierced her eyes and scolded her in obscene language. PW-1 did not state
before him that on 07-08-2013, another incident was also occurred. PW-
2, Sri Devicharan Doley did not state before him that the accused scolded
her by calling her ‘randi’. PW-4 Smti. Lalima Das did not state before him
that the accused threw stone to the informant. It is not a fact that he did
not investigate the case properly.
14. PW-7 Smti. Namita Pegu has deposed that she knows the informant and
the accused persons. The incident was taken place about 2 years back. At
about 6 pm, informant was staying on the road in front of their house
with her niece. She was also nearby the informant. At that time accused
Smti. Hima Sonowal came and threw stone on the leg of the informant .
Blood came out from the wound. She made utterance. Public gathered.
Then accused Smti. Hima Sonowal fled away.
In her cross examination, she has stated that she lives in a rented
house nearby the house of the informant. She did not state before the
police about the fact that stone fell on the leg of the informant. It is not a

Page 6 of 10
 (7)

fact that due to good relation, she has deposed falsely on behalf of the
informant.
15. After close scrutiny of the above discussed prosecution side evidence it is
not seen that the informant was obstructed from proceeding any
direction. As such no offence U/S 341 is established against the accused.
Likewise, after evaluation of the above prosecution side evidence it is not
proved that accused Smti. Hima Sonowal threw stones so rashly and
negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of the said
informant or her niece and thereby committed an offence punishable U/S
336 IPC. The informant herself has deposed that only one stone was
thrown on her leg. From the prosecution side evidence it is also not
proved whether the accused scolded the informant in or nearby any
public place or not. The informant herself has not deposed anything in
which manner or by using which word the accused did the absence act.
As such the prosecution side has failed to prove a case U/S 341/336/294
of IPC beyond all reasonable doubt.
Now coming to the offence U/S 323 IPC, it is seen that there is
contradiction and confusion. The informant cum victim herself has
deposed that she was injured on her nose and below the knee of her
right leg. But the medical officer while examining the informant got injury
on her nose only.
The informant herself has deposed that with a sharp weapon the accused
hit on her nose whereas PW-3 has deposed that with one iron thing the
accused hit on the nose of the informant whereas PW-4 has deposed that
she saw that accused Smti. Hima Sonowal hurt on the face of the
informant by taking stone. PW-7 has deposed that the accused threw
stone on the leg of the informant . Thus, the picture is not clear how and
with which instrument the accused caused hurt to the informant. Which
raise reasonable doubt. Learned defence Counsel has argued that
accused filed a complaint against the informant and the informant grows
an illegal love affairs with the husband of the accused and at present the
husband of accused Sri Archana Sonowal has been living with the
accused. As such there is every possibility of filing a false case against the

Page 7 of 10
 (8)

accused. It is also argued by the learned Counsel for the accused that all
the witnesses are interested witnesses and so deposed falsely in
contradictory manner against the accused.
In view of the above, evidence is not found sufficient to hold guilty of the
accused of an offence U/S 323 IPC as well.

ORDER

16. Thus, prosecution side has failed to prove the case U/S
341/323/336/294/323 IPC against the accused. Hence all the above
points are decided in negative. Both the accused Smti. Hima Sonowal
and Smti. Archana Sonowal are hereby acquitted and set at liberty.

However, their bail bond shall be in force for a period of six months under
provision of Section 437A of CrPC.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this 3rd day of May
2017.

(Prepared & corrected by me)

(U. BORAH)
JMFC, Dhemaji, Assam.

Page 8 of 10
 (9)

APPENDIX
A. Name of prosecution witness:
1. Smti. Arnali Bora. (Informant)
2. Sri Devicharan Doley.
3. Smti. Moni Borah.
4. Smti. Lalima Boa Das.
5. Dr. Dharma Knt. Mili.
6. ASI Ananda Borah. (IO)

B. Prosecution Exhibit:
1. FIR.
2. Medical Report.
3. Sketch Map.
4. Charge-Sheet.
C. Defence witness:
NIL
D. Defence Exhibits:
NIL
E. Court Witness:
NIL
F. Court Exhibits:
NIL

(U.BORAH)
Page 9 of 10
 (10)

Judicial Magistrate 1st Class.

Dhemaji, Assam.

THIS 3rd DAY OF MAY 2017.

Page 10 of 10