1

IN THE COURT OF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, JONAI, DHEMAJI

PRESENT : Sandeep Kaushik , AJS G.R.Case No.- 85/15 Under Section 447/323/294/506 I.P.C.

State of Assam ............. Prosecution -Vs- Smti. Priya Mili Pegu ............. Accused

Person

Learned Advocates: For the Prosecution ...................................... Sri K. Saikia,

Asstt.P.P. For the Accused ...................................... Sri R. Doley

Offence explained on : 22.09.2015 Evidence recorded on : 30.03.2016, 27.07.2016, 30.08.2016,

01.11.2016, 06.05.2017 Arguments heard on : 09.06.2017 Judgement delivered on : 22.06.2017

JUDGEMENT

1. This case was started on receipt of an ‘ejahar’ (F.I.R.) at the

Jonai Police Station on 03/05/2015, filed by informant Sri

Sanjib Padi alleging therein that on the same day at 1.30

P.M., when he was chatting with the President and

Secretary of T.M.P.K., Jonai Region in Raju Borah’s Hotel

which is situated at Rangkop Tiniali, accused Priya Mili

Pegu had come to the hotel, picked up her sandal and

physically assaulted the informant with the help of that

2

sandal. Accused had also threatened to kill Sri Sanjib

Padi. In order to save himself from the attack of accused,

Sri Sanjib Padi fled away from the place of occurrence.

The informant had stated that he had filed a case earlier

against the accused in the Jonai Police Station as the

accused had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from the informant

and did not return the same and as a revenge of the filing

of the case, accused had attacked the informant in that

manner in front of public at the place of occurrence on

03/05/2015. Hence, the informant has lodged the ‘ejahar’.

2. The Officer-in-Charge (in short, O/C), Jonai Police Station on

receipt of the said ‘ejahar’ registered Jonai P.S. case

number 51/15 under section 447/325/294/506 of Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (in short, I.P.C.) and ordered the

investigation. After completion of the investigation, the

concerned Investigating Officer (in short, I/O) submitted

charge sheet against Smti. Priya Mili Pegu under section

447/323/294/506 I.P.C.

3. In due course, the accused person appeared before the court

and after furnishing her the copies of relevant documents

under section 207 Cr.P.C., the particulars of offence under

section 447/323/294/506 I.P.C were read over and

explained to the accused person to which she pleaded not

guilty and claimed to be tried.

3

4. The Prosecution had examined Sri Sanjib Padi as Prosecution

Witness (in short, PW) no.1, Sri Madhab Padi as PW2,

Smti. Anima Borah as PW3, Sri Lakhi Kanta Mandal as

PW4, Sri Bulon Medok as PW5, Dr. Jyoti Kutum as PW6

and Prafulla Saikia as PW7 to bring home the allegations

levelled against the accused person. Thereafter, the

evidence of prosecution side was closed as per

submission of learned A.P.P. The statement of accused

under section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded. The defence plea

was of total denial. On the other hand, the accused

declined to give any evidence in her defence. Hence,

arguments advanced by both the parties were heard.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION :

5. (i) Whether the accused person, Smti. Priya Mili Pegu on

03/05/2015 at about 1.30 P.M., at Rangkop Tiniali, Jonai,

had committed criminal trespass by entering into the

hotel premises of Sri Raju Borah with intent to intimidate

and physically assault Sri Sanjib Padi and thereby

committed an offence punishable under section 447 I.P.C.

?

(ii) Whether the accused person on the same day, at same

time and at same place, had voluntarily caused hurt to Sri

Sanjib Padi by physically assaulting him with sandal and

thereby committed an offence punishable under section

323 I.P.C. ?

4

(iii) Whether the accused person on the same day, at same

time and at the same place, had uttered obscene words

to Sri Sanjib Padi and that caused annoyance to him and

thereby committed an offence punishable under section

294 I.P.C. ?

(iv) Whether the accused person on the same day, at same

time and at same place, committed criminal intimidation

by threatening to kill Sri Sanjib Padi with intent to cause

alarm to him and thereby committed an offence

punishable under section 506 I.P.C. ?

DISCUSSIONS, DECISIONS AND REASONS THEREOF :

6. Before appreciating the evidence, let us first give a quick

look on the important evidences adduced by witnesses in

this case. PW1, who is the informant of this case, has

deposed in his evidence that on 26/12/2014, accused

Smti. Priya Mili had borrowed Rs.50,000/- from him with

an assurance that she would return the money within one

month. As the accused did not return the money, PW1

had lodged an ‘ejahar’ at the Jonai P.S. against the

accused. According to PW1, on 02/05/2015, police of

Jonai P.S. called both the accused and PW1 to the police

station but as PW1 was suffering from illness, he

intimated the police station that he would go on

03/05/2015. PW1 has stated that at about 1-1.30 P.M.,

when he was drinking tea with his friends in the Borah

Hotel of Rangkop Tiniali, accused Priya Mili came to that

5

place from police station and physically assaulted PW1

with the help of a sandal. As a result, PW1 had sustained

injury in his leg and back of his body. Thereafter, PW1

had lodged the ‘ejahar’ at Jonai P.S. against accused.

Exhibit-1 is the ‘ejahar’ and Exhibit-1(1) is the signature

of PW1 in the ‘ejahar’. PW1 has stated that on the same

day, accused had also lodged an ‘ejahar’ against him in

Jonai P.S. with the allegation of verbal abuse of accused

by PW1. According to PW1, after one month of that

incident after taking bail, accused had returned his

money.

7. In his cross examination, PW1 has deposed that accused is

his relative. PW1 has stated that he has lent the money to

accused at 5% interest. PW1 has stated that when

accused had returned Rs.50,000/- to him, both of them

went to the P.S. and withdrew the case lodged by PW1

against the accused for not returning the money. PW1 has

also stated that he had not submitted any document

regarding the medical treatment of his injuries.

8. PW2 has deposed in his evidence that on 03/05/2015 at

around 2.30 P.M., when he along with his friends were

taking tea in a hotel at Rangkop Tiniali, he saw that a

quarrel was going on between accused and informant in

front of Borah Hotel. PW2 has stated that he had seen the

accused trying to assault the informant by holding his

6

cloth in the chest region and by picking up her sandal in

her hand. According to PW2, he had seen only that much

of the incident.

9. In his cross examination, PW2 has deposed that informant is

not his relative. PW2 has stated that he does not know

why the quarrel took place. PW2 has stated that the

incident took place in the verandah of the hotel in which

he was sitting. PW2 cannot say by which object, accused

had assaulted the informant.

10. PW3 in her evidence has deposed that the incident had

taken place in the month of May, 2015 at around 2 P.M. At

that time, PW3 was sitting at the counter inside her shop

which is situated at Rangkop Tiniali and at that time she

had heard some hue and cry inside the shop and saw that

accused Priya Mili after picking up her sandal in her hand

had been physically assaulting Sanjib Padi. According to

PW3, she had asked both of them to stop making noise

and they went outside the shop. PW3 has stated that she

knows only that much about the incident.

11. In her cross examination, PW3 has deposed that informant

often comes to her hotel and at the time of incident,

some other people were also present in her hotel. PW3

has stated that she does not know why quarrel had taken

7

place between accused and informant and PW3 only

came to the place when she had heard the hue and cry.

12. PW4 has deposed in his evidence that the incident took

place in the year 2015. On the day of incident at about

2.30 P.M., PW4 was working as a cook in the Borah Hotel

of Rangkop Tiniali. At that time, accused suddenly came

to the hotel and physically assaulted the informant with

her sandal. PW4 has stated that he had seen the accused

physically assaulting the informant with sandal.

13. In his cross examination, PW4 has deposed that he has

forgotten the date or day of the incident. According to

PW4, the incident took place inside the hotel and before

the incident, Sanjib Padi was busy in conversation inside

the hotel.

14. PW5 in his evidence has deposed that he has forgotten

about the day or date of occurrence. On the day of

incident, at about 3.30 P.M., he was taking his meal in the

Borah Hotel of Rangkop Tiniali along with 2-3 other

persons. According to PW5, he had not met the informant

at that time. After the lunch, PW5 came out of the hotel

and noticed that people gathered outside the hotel. PW5

has stated that he does not know why people gathered at

that place.

8

15. In his cross examination, PW5 has deposed that the

gathering of people was not like the one that happens on

other days.

16. PW6, who is the Medical Officer (M.O.), has deposed in his

evidence that on 3/5/2015, at 2.30 P.M. he had examined

Sanjib Padi on police requisition and found tenderness in

the scapular region. The injury was simple in nature and

caused due to blunt object. Exhibit-2 is the Medical

Report and Exhibit-2(1) is the signature of PW6 in the

Report.

17. In his cross examination, PW6 has deposed that he had not

observed any injury in the body of injured. PW6 has

deposed that when tenderness is present, it becomes

difficult to determine the age of the injury. According to

PW6, the injury of the injured person took place in his

right scapular region but that is not mentioned in the

Medical Report. PW6 has stated that the kind of injury he

had observed on the body of patient may be caused when

a person hit against a wall.

18. PW7, who is the I/O of this case, has deposed in his

evidence that on 4/5/2015, Sanjib Padi had lodged one

‘ejahar’ and after registering a case, the O/C, Jonai P.S.

had entrusted the responsibility of investigation to PW7.

PW7 has questioned the informant and other witnesses in

9

the police station, went to the place of occurrence,

inspected the place, drew sketch map of the place and

questioned the witnesses present at the place of

occurrence. PW7 had sent the informant/victim for

medical examination and collected the report of such

examination. Accused Priya Mili Pegu came to the police

station and PW7 questioned her and getting sufficient

evidence against her of committing of the offence,

arrested her and allowed her to go on bail. PW7 has

stated that during the investigation a blue coloured sandal

was seized from the house of accused and accused had

admitted before PW7 that she had attacked the informant

with that sandal. After completion of the investigation,

PW7 had submitted the charge sheet. Exhibit-3 is the

seizure list of sandal and Exhibit-3(1) is the signature of

PW7 in the seizure list. Exhibit-4 is the sketch map of the

place of occurrence and Exhibit-4(1) is the signature of

PW7 in the map. Exhibit-5 is the charge sheet and

Exhibit-5(1) is the signature of PW7 in the charge sheet.

19. PW7 in his cross examination has deposed that he had not

recorded the statement of President and Secretary of

T.M.P.K., although it is written in the ‘ejahar’ that they

were present along with the informant at the time of

incident. PW7 has stated that he has not mentioned in his

charge sheet why the incident had taken place. PW7 has

denied the suggestion put to him by accused side that as

10

in this case transaction of money is involved, hence, it is a

civil matter.

20. Now, let me appreciate the evidence on record. It is seen

that in the instant case, prosecution has examined as

many as seven witnesses out of whom PW1 is the

informant and victim of the case, PW2, PW3, PW4, PW5

are independent witnesses, PW6 is the M.O. and PW7 is

the I/O of this case. The accused person has not adduced

evidence of any witnesses in her defence. In the instant

case, although I/O has submitted charge sheet under

section 294 I.P.C. and subsequently offence was also

explained under that section of I.P.C., but careful perusal

of the ‘ejahar’ reveals that informant himself has not

mentioned in his ‘ejahar’ a single word regarding his

verbal abuse by using obscene words by the accused on

the day of incident. Moreover, in the evidence of PWs

also, none of the witnesses has whispered a single word

that they had seen or heard any verbal abuse of

informant by accused person on the day of occurrence of

the incident. Surprisingly, the informant as PW1 himself

has not mentioned in his evidence anything about his

verbal abuse by the accused on the day of incident.

Hence, in absence of any evidence on record regarding

the verbal abuse of informant by using obscene words by

the accused, I hold that the accused cannot be held guilty

under section 294 I.P.C. Similarly, it is seen that although

11

informant has mentioned in his ‘ejahar’ that on the day of

incident, accused Priya Mili Pegu had threatened to kill

him but informant has not stated about such intimidation

in his evidence before court as PW1. PW2, PW3, PW4 and

PW5, all are independent witnesses but they had also not

stated in their evidence that they had either seen or

heard the accused making any kind of criminal

intimidation to the informant on the day of incident. On

the other hand, PW6 is the M.O. and his evidence cannot

help the prosecution in any manner to establish the

offence of criminal intimidation committed by the

accused. Therefore, solely on the basis of the

investigation and charge sheet of police, where there are

allegations of criminal intimidation, the accused person

cannot be held guilty under section 506 I.P.C., unless and

until such offence of accused is proved by some cogent

evidence of independent and trustworthy witnesses.

Hence, I hold that due to lack of sufficient evidence, the

offence of accused under section 506 I.P.C. is not proved

in this case.

21. Now, coming to the another allegation against accused of

committing criminal trespass, it is seen that the informant

in his ‘ejahar’ has mentioned that when he was talking

with some persons by sitting in the Borah Hotel at

Rangkop Tiniali, accused came there and physically

assaulted him. In his evidence, informant as PW1 has not

12

mentioned whether accused had attacked him after

entering the hotel or outside the hotel or in hotel

verandah but as PW1 has stated that he was taking tea

with his friends at the time of incident, it can be

presumed that PW1 was present inside the hotel and

accused entered into the hotel in order to attack him. It

appears from the evidence of PW3 and PW4, who are eye

witnesses of the incident, that they have clearly stated

that the quarrel took place inside the hotel, which means

accused entered the hotel to attack the informant. But on

the other hand, PW2, who is another eye witness of this

case, has stated that he saw the accused and informant

engaged themselves in a quarrel outside the Borah Hotel

and at that time, PW2 was drinking tea inside the same

hotel. Therefore, the evidence of PW2 contradicts with

the evidence of PW3 and PW4 regarding whether the

place of occurrence is situated outside the hotel or inside

it. Besides, PW5 has stated in his evidence that although

he had not seen the incident and he was present inside

the Borah Hotel and at that time informant was not

present in that hotel but when after having lunch he came

outside the hotel, he saw gathering of people outside.

Thus, from the evidence of PW5, nothing can be inferred

about where the actual incident took place. But the I/O

i.e. PW7 has clearly mentioned in his sketch map that the

place of occurrence falls inside the Borah Hotel.

Therefore, from the evidence of PW1, PW3, PW4 and

13

PW7, it can be presumed that the incident might have

occurred inside the Borah Hotel. Now, the question is

whether the accused on the day of incident had criminally

trespassed into the place of occurrence or not. In order to

search out the answer of this question, section 441 of

I.P.C is looked into and that section says that -

“Whoever enters into or upon property in the

possession of another with intent to commit an

offence or to intimidate, insult or annoy any

person in possession of such property

Or having lawfully entered into or upon such

property, unlawfully remains there with intent

thereby to intimidate, insult or annoy any such

person, or with intent to commit an offence,

Is said to commit criminal trespass”

In the instant, case from the evidence and materials on

record, it is clear that the informant is neither the owner

of Borah Hotel nor the hotel was exclusively in his

possession. A hotel is open to all public and anyone can

come to the hotel at a time when the hotel is open. In

this case, during the occurrence of the incident, although

the accused person had come to the hotel to quarrel with

the informant but the hotel was neither possessed by the

informant nor the accused had committed any offence or

intimidation, insult etc. to the owner of the hotel. In fact,

it is clearly mentioned by the owner of the hotel, Smti.

Anima Borah, who is examined as PW3 in this case, that

14

when she asked the accused not to make any noise inside

the hotel, accused went outside the hotel. Thus, from the

materials on record, it also cannot be said that after

lawfully entering the hotel, accused unlawfully remained

inside the hotel. Above all, from the evidence on record, it

cannot be concluded that accused came to the hotel to

commit any offence as because she only engaged herself

in a quarrel at first and then suddenly, in the spurt of

anger, picked up her own sandal which she was wearing

and physically assaulted the informant. Hence, in this

case, it cannot be inferred that accused came to the hotel

with a previous intention of committing any offence to the

informant. Moreover, the accused did not enter the hotel

either unlawfully or unauthorisedly, as at the time of

incident the hotel was open to all. Therefore, in the

instant case, I have found that the ingredients required

for constituting the offence of criminal trespass by

accused is not fully present in order to convict the

accused under section 447 I.P.C. As a result, I hold that

the offence of accused person under section 447 I.P.C. is

not proved in this case beyond reasonable doubt and

hence, the accused cannot be held guilty under section

447 I.P.C.

22. Another allegation against the accused is that she had

physically assaulted the informant and caused hurt to him

on the day of occurrence of the incident. In this regard,

15

perusal of the ‘ejahar’ reveals that informant has stated

about the incident very clearly that on 3/5/15, accused

came to the Borah Hotel situated at Rangkop Tiniali, Jonai

and removed her sandal from the feet and physically

assaulted him with the help of that sandal. It appears that

the informant in his evidence before court as PW1 has

also described the incident in the similar way. PW2 has

also stated that he had seen the accused trying to attack

the informant with the help of her sandal on the day of

incident. However, PW2 has stated that he does not know

why the quarrel had taken place between the accused

and informant. PW3 is the owner of the hotel where the

incident took place and she has clearly stated in her

evidence that at the time of incident, she had seen the

accused physically attacking the informant with her

sandal. PW3 has stated that when she went to see what

had happened between accused and informant, at that

time, accused was beating the informant with her sandal

and PW3 asked them not to create an unwanted situation

in the hotel and thereafter, the accused and informant

went outside the hotel. PW4 is the cook of the Borah

Hotel where the incident took place and also an eye

witness and PW4 has stated that he also saw the accused

physically assaulting the informant by sandal at his hotel

on the day of incident. Thus, it is seen that the evidence

of PW1 is fully corroborated by the evidence of PW2, PW3

and PW4 and all of them have described the incident and

16

the place, time of occurrence etc. exactly in the similar

manner. PW6, who is the M.O. also supported the

evidence of other PWs by saying that he had found

tenderness in the scapular region of the body of

informant which means the M.O had found tenderness on

the back of the body just below the shoulder during his

examination and this version of M.O. exactly matches with

the evidence of PW1, who stated that after the attack by

accused he got hurt in the back of his body. It appears

that the M.O had examined the informant on 3/5/2015 at

about 2.30 P.M. i.e. just after the incident, on the day of

occurrence and finding of tenderness caused due to blunt

object clearly establishes the claim of the informant that

he was attacked by sandal. It appears that although

during the cross examination, the accused side had put

the question to M.O. that whether the injuries of the

informant can be caused if he hits against any wall and

M.O. answered in affirmative, but posing that question to

M.O. will not prove that informant had hit against any

wall. The accused side did not try to establish by any

evidence that in fact, due to the hitting on a wall,

informant got hurt. Therefore, in absence of any evidence

from accused side which helps in creating any alternate

presumption regarding the cause of injury of informant,

the claim made by the informant will remain unrebutted.

PW5 has stated in his evidence that he had seen

gathering of people outside the Borah Hotel at 3.30 P.M.

17

when he was taking his meal there but he does not know

why people gathered there and he had not seen the

informant at the place of occurrence. Thus, from the

evidence of PW5, nothing can be gathered regarding the

incident but it can be said that something had happened

in the Borah Hotel on that day and hence, people

gathered there and PW5 could not seen anything,

obviously because the incident took place at 1.30-2 P.M.

and at 3.30 P.M. when PW5 was present in the hotel, the

incident was already over. But his evidence supports that

something must have had happened in the Borah Hotel

on the day of incident although PW5 had not seen

anything when he went to the hotel. On the other hand,

PW7, who is the I/O has submitted the charge sheet

against the accused under section 323 I.P.C naturally after

getting sufficient evidence against the accused of causing

hurt to informant and hence, PW7 has also supported the

evidence of other witnesses that accused had caused

simple hurt to informant on the day of occurrence of the

incident. During the argument, the learned counsel of

accused has argued that M.O. has said in his evidence

before court that he had not found any injury on the body

of informant during his examination and hence, accused

cannot be held guilty for an offence under section 323

I.P.C. But in this regard, it can be said that M.O has

clearly stated that he had found tenderness on the

scapular region of body of informant and that evidence of

18

M.O. clearly supports the evidence of PW1 that he got

hurt in the back of his body during the incident. Moreover,

section 323 of I.P.C. states about ‘hurt’ and not about

‘injury’. There is a difference between ‘hurt’ and ‘injury’.

Section 319 of I.P.C. defines hurt as “Whoever causes

bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person is

said to cause hurt”. Therefore, if someone attacks a

person physically and due to that attack if the victim

suffers even pain or infirmity, the person is said to have

caused hurt to the victim. It is not necessary that in each

and every case of hurt, physical injury or wound should

have caused by accused. In the instant case, the M.O.

just after the incident had found tenderness in the body

of informant during his examination and tenderness can

be validly said as a kind of hurt caused by accused to the

informant. Therefore, I have found no strength in the

argument of learned counsel for accused that as no injury

was present on the body of victim i.e. informant hence,

no hurt was caused to him by accused.

23. During the argument of the case, the learned counsel for

the accused has vehemently argued that as the accused

did not return the money of informant, he has filed this

case against accused in order to take revenge. But in my

view, if that be the reality, then informant would have

withdrawn the case later, as he admitted that the accused

had returned the money to him. Moreover, informant has

19

claimed that he had filed a case in the police station

against the accused as she failed to return the money

borrowed by her and due to that, accused came chasing

him to the hotel and physically assaulted him. The

accused side could neither rebut this claim of informant

by adducing any evidence nor the accused tried to prove

anything in the evidence stage that informant has filed

this case as a revenge against the non payment of money

by accused. Moreover, PW1 has claimed that he had filed

a case earlier against the accused as she did not pay the

borrowed money but later PW1 had withdrawn the case

as accused returned the money to him and to this claim,

accused side did not give any objection. This clearly

proves that the instant case was not filed by informant for

taking any revenge to the accused. Hence, I found the

argument of accused side that informant has filed this

case as revenge for not returning the borrowed money,

not sustainable. The learned counsel for the accused also

argued that I/O has not examined the President and

Secretary of T.M.P.K. organisation who were claimed to

have present with the informant at the time of incident.

But in my view, it is within the domain of I/O during

investigation that whom he would examine as witness

and whom he not. If I/O fails to question any material

witness, that would be disadvantageous to the

prosecution and not to the accused. Moreover, if required,

court is empowered to call any witness for his deposition.

20

Hence, in this case, in my view, the argument of accused

side that I/O had not examined any witness, does not

affect the case of accused in any manner and at the same

time, cannot strengthen the case of accused either.

24. Therefore, in the instant case, having gone through the

evidence on record, it is seen that PW1 has stated exactly

the same facts as he mentioned in his ‘ejahar’. The

evidence of PW1 is fully corroborated by the evidences of

PW2, PW3 and PW4. PW6, who is the M.O., also

corroborated the evidence of PW1 by saying that he had

found tenderness on the body of informant. It is seen that

the main allegation in this case is that accused physically

assaulted the informant with sandal and in my view, an

attack by sandal could hardly cause any cut injury or

serious wound to the informant and it is expected that

such kind of attack could only cause pain, tenderness etc.

and in that regard, the evidence of PW1 and PW6

matches each other and as a result, increases the

reliability of the evidence of PW1 as well as PW6. PW7

also corroborated the evidence of PW1 as he has found

sufficient evidence against accused under section 323

I.P.C during his investigation and accordingly, submitted

charge sheet against her. Thus, the evidence of PW1 is

fully supported by the evidence of PW2, PW3, PW4, PW6

and PW7 in this case regarding his physical assault by the

accused with sandal on the day of occurrence of the

21

incident. The I/O has even seized the sandal by which the

informant was allegedly attacked by accused but as the

prosecution did not attempt to prove that with that

particular sandal accused had caused the offence, hence,

about such seizure and the involvement of seized article

in the alleged offence will not be discussed in this case.

Even then, the witnesses of prosecution have been able

to establish by their evidence that the incident of physical

assault had taken place on the day of occurrence of the

incident and on that day, the accused with the help of a

sandal attacked the informant. On the other hand, the

accused side has miserably failed in their cross

examination to rebut the evidence of PWs and at the

same time, the accused side did not adduce any evidence

in their defence to disprove the claim of prosecution

regarding the physical assault of informant. In the instant

case, I have found the evidence of PW1, PW2, PW3, PW4,

PW6 and PW7 consistent and not shaky during the cross

examination by accused side. During the cross

examination, the accused side could neither rebut the

evidence of PWs nor could establish anything by adducing

evidence from their own side that accused did not cause

physical hurt to informant. PW1, PW2, PW3 and PW4

have stated the time of occurrence almost similarly i.e.

between 1.30 P.M. to 2.30 P.M., in other words, in the

afternoon. PW2 and PW3 are independent witnesses and

PW2 has stated about the date of incident clearly as

22

3/5/2015 and PW3 has stated that the incident took place

in the month of May, 2015 and PW6 also examined the

informant on 3/5/2015. Hence, there is no dispute

regarding the date and time of occurrence in this case.

The place of occurrence is also made out in this case as

all the PWs, except M.O., has stated that the place of

occurrence is the Borah Hotel at Rangkop Tiniali. Thus, I

have found nothing on record to disbelieve the evidences

of PWs. Hence, stitching everything on record together

leads to the only conclusion that accused Sri Priya Mili

Pegu on the day of occurrence of the incident, physically

assaulted the informant by her sandal and due to which

the informant Sri Sanjib Padi got hurt. Therefore, I hold

that the offence under section 323 I.P.C. is proved in this

case against the accused Smti. Priya Mili Pegu beyond

reasonable doubt.

25. In view of the above discussion, it is concluded that the prosecution has

been able to successfully establish the offence under section 323 I.P.C. against

the accused person, Smti. Priya Mili Pegu beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly,

the accused person of this case, Smti. Priya Mili Pegu is found guilty under

section 323 I.P.C. and she is convicted under the said section of I.P.C. On the

other hand, prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused person

under section 447/294/506 I.P.C. Hence, the accused person is acquitted of the

offence under section 447/294/506 I.P.C.

26. The accused person, being a woman, had quarrelled with the informant and

that had created noisy environment and disturbed the peace and tranquillity of

the area. Moreover, accused has shown greedy and aggressive behaviour and

brutally attacked the informant with sandal in front of public and that too, for a

23

very trifling reason that informant had lodged an ‘ejahar’ against the accused in

the police station in order to get back his money and such behaviour of accused

is not at all acceptable in a civilised society. Hence, I am not inclined to give the

accused person the benefit of any provisions of the Probation of Offenders Act.

27. Heard the accused person on the point of sentence. Considering the entire

matter and facts and circumstances of the case, I find that a lenient approach of

punishment by imposing minimum fine will meet the ends of justice in this case.

Accordingly, the accused person, Smti. Priya Mili Pegu is sentenced to pay a fine

of Rs.400/-(Four Hundred) under section 323 I.P.C., in default of payment of fine,

the accused person shall undergo simple imprisonment for 7 (Seven) days. The

seized article be given to its owner in due course.

28. Furnish a free copy of this judgement to the accused person immediately.

Given under my hand and seal of this court on this 22nd day of June,

2017.

Judicial Magistrate First Class

Jonai,Dhemaji

APPENDIX

PROSECUTION WITNESSES :

PW1 -- Sri Sanjib Padi

PW2 -- Sri Madhab Padi

PW3 -- Smti. Anima Borah

PW4 -- Sri Lakhi Kanta Mandal

PW5 -- Sri Bulon Medok

PW6 -- Dr. Jyoti Kutum

PW7 -- Sri Prafulla Saikia

DEFENCE WITNESS :

Nil

EXHIBITS BY THE PROSECUTION :

Exhibit 1 - ‘Ejahar’

Exhibit 1(1) - Signature of the informant on the ‘ejahar’

Exhibit 2 - Medical Report

Exhibit 2(1) - Signature of M.O. in the Medical Report

Exhibit 3 - Seizure list of sandal

Exhibit 3(1) - Signature of I/O in the seizure list

Exhibit 4 - Sketch Map of the place of occurrence

Exhibit 4(1) - Signature of I/O in the sketch map

Exhibit 5 - Charge Sheet

Exhibit 5(1) - Signature of I/O in the charge sheet

EXHIBITS BY THE DEFENCE :

Nil

Judicial Magistrate First Class

Jonai, Dhemaji