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

GR No.1943/11

U/S 341/323/352/294 IPC

State

-vs-

Kusha Yadav…………….…Accused.

Appearance:-

Smt. P Gogoi, APP, for the prosecution &

Bikash Agarwalla, Ld.Advocate for the accused.

Evidence recorded on 06-11-2012,

27-11-2012 &

13-02-2013.

Argument heard on 04-03-2013.

Judgmentpronounced & delivered

on 18-03-2013.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The prosecution case in brief is that on 16-09-11 at 10:30 a.m. where informant’s husband Kusha Yadav was waiting in front of his house, the accused Kusha Yadav voluntarily caused simple hurt to Laba Yadav by a ‘lathi’. She was also pushed by the accused when she was addressing towards her husband in presence of Sivananta Yadav and Suryya Yadav. The incident was arisen due to throwing a mobile from the hands of her father-in-law and to this effect informant;Smita Yadav lodged an ejahar to the Officer-In-Charge (OC), Namrup Police Station (PS).

2. After receiving the above ejahar OC, Hemanta Borah, Namrup PS registered a case no.76/11 u/s 341/325/352/294/34 IPC and directed SI, Biren Dutta to take up the investigation and after completion of which Investigating Officer (IO) submitted charge-sheet against the accused person u/s 341/323/352/294 IPC. Hence the case.

3. Accused was summoned to appear before this court. After his appearance, he was allowed to go on bail. Copy was furnished to him. Particulars of offences punishable u/s 341/323/352/294 IPC was explained to him to which he pleaded not guilty but claimed to be tried.

4. To prove the case prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses including Medical Officer. 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 canvased by the advocate appearing for the parties including APP.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

5 (a) Whether the accused on 16-09-11 at 10:30 a.m. wrongfully restrained the informant & her husband and thereby committed an offense punishable u/s 341 IPC?

(b) Whether the accused person on 16-09-11 at 10:30 a.m. voluntarily caused hurt to the informant and thereby committed an offense punishable u/s 323 IPC?

(c) Whether the accused person on 16-09-11 at 10:30 a.m. assaulted the informant and her husband and thereby committed an offense punishable u/s 352 IPC?

(d) Whether the accused person on 16-09-11 at 10:30 a.m. uttered obscene words to the informant and her husband and thereby committed an offense punishable u/s 294 IPC?

DISCUSSION, DECISION AND REASON THEREOF

6. The allegation made against the accused, Kusha Yadav is that while her father-in-law was talking over phone to hiseldest son, Shiv Narayan Yadav, the accused Kusha Yadav thrown away the mobile from the hands of her father-in-law. When her husband Laba Yadav objected it to Kusha Yadav he voluntarily caused hurt to her husband with a ‘lathi’ snatching away the mobile from her father-in-law in presence of Sivananda Yadav, Suryya Yadav and another. Her husband sustained injury. The allegation leveled against the accused has been supported by PW-1 being the husband of PW-2When Mahesh Yadav and Sudhir Yadav disrupted them from quarrelling, the accused Kusha Yadav and Sudhir Yadav pushed his wife aside. His wife lodged the ejahar against the accused. PW-3, PW-4 (Mithelesh Yadav, Sudhir Yadav) stated of altercation between PW-2 and the accused in their deposition. PW-5 (Mahesh Yadav), PW-6 (Ram Yadav) both of them deposed that the given case was arisen out of scuffle between the PW-2 and the accused, Kusha Yadav and they are brothers by relation. The scuffle arose due to taking of rent by both of them as there is as many as 35 rented house of the father of Laba Yadav and Shiv Narayan Yadav is working out of Assam. The injury of PW-2 was entreated by PW-7 and she opined the injury of PW-2, PW-1 is simple in nature. Ext-2, Ext-3 and Ext-2(1) & 3(1) her signature. MO as PW-7 further opined that such injuries might have caused due to hitting against hard substance but it was not voluntarily caused by the accused on them. It is a fact that due to scuffle arising out of heated argument or altercation it may so happen, so it was happened. PW-3 as being tenant of Ram Avadh Yadav paid his rent to Laba Yadav. Conflict rifted from time and again for lifting rent from the tenants living with him. According to PW-1 there are 35rented houses of her father-in-law, Ram Bardhan Yadav letting out to tenants and there is no any demarcation of it. PW-1’s husband collect rent of 10 tenants while the rents of the remaining houses were collected by the accused. The crux of the case between the informant and informant’s husband and the accused is of collecting house rent from the rented houses belonging to the father-in-law of PW-1 and father of PW-2. It is evident from PW-1 to PW-7 that the owner of the rented house belonged to father of the PW-2 and the accused and the houses has not yet been demarcated or partitioned between the brothers and sister of the PW-2 and the accused. Neither of the accused or the PW-1 is entitled, no part of it belong to them however, they have been collecting rents of the houses from the tenants according to their convenience. There is no iota of proof that the houses installed by the father of PW-2 and the accused was situated on a government land or a patta land of PW-2’s father has not been proved. The 35 rented houses of Ram Avadh Yadav have not been partitioned neither to the PW-2 nor the accused. Thus, both the accused as well as the PW-2 has equal share on the property of their father. The allegation brought against the accused by the PW-1 and 2 has not been proved as the apple of discard is on the ball of the father of PW-2 and the accused as Laba-Kusha arising out of Ram Avadh Yadav which is a subject matter of civil in nature pertaining to rent collection from the tenants. As alleged by the PWs the accused has been collecting house rent from more tenants than that of them upon which the given case arose between Laba-Kusha.

ORDER

7. Prosecution has not been able to prove its case against the accused. I find the accused not guilty of offences punishable u/s 341/323/352/294 IPC. I acquit him from the offences punishable u/s 341/323/352/294 IPC and he is set at liberty forthwith. His bail bond stands cancelled.

Sealed, signed and delivered this judgment by me on this 18th day of March, 2013 at Dibrugarh.

SDJM (S)

Dibrugarh, Assam.

pg. 1