IN THE COURT OF THE SDJMfSl-I, KAMRUP <METRO),

GUWAHATI, ASSAM.

G.R.Case No. 544612002

VIs. 498-A I.P.C.

STATE

v.Ramen Kalita @ Robin Kalita

.•.Accused.PRESENT: A.Khanal, A.J.S.

SDJM(S)-I, Kamrup (Metro),

Guwhati.

For the Prosecution: Learned Addl.P.P.

For the Defence: Mr. B. K. Deka, Advocate.

Evidence recorded on: 07.06.2014 and 22.09.2014.

Argument heard on: 22.09.2014.

Judgment delivered on: 22.09.2014.

1. The instant criminal case is set in motion through a written 'ejahar' lodged by one

Gita Kalita on 11.12.2002 before the Officer-in-charge, Dispur P.S. alleging that her

husband (the accused) and her in-laws ~sed to torture her both mentally and physically

demanding money and other articles after few days of their marriage and in order to coerce

her to meet their unlawful demand chased h~r away from their house on 18.11.2002keeping

back all her.'stridhana articles'.

That the said 'ejahar' was received and registered as Dispur P.S. Case No. 1194/2002

. 498-A/406/506/34 I.P.C. That on basis of the 'ejahar' police started investigation and

completion of investigation the police found sufficient materials only against the

ed and submitted charge-sheet against him VIs. 498-A I.P.C. vide Charge-Sheet No.

2010 dated 18.10.2010.

That on submission of the charge-sheet it was accepted and cognizance was taken VIs.

498-A I.P.C. Now since the accused was already on Court bail at the stage of investigation

and summons were issued to him. That after procuring the attendance of the accused he was

released on previous Court'bail.

4. That copy was furnished to the accused and on hearing both sides on the point of

charge and perusing the case record and finding prima-facie materials VIs. 498-A I.P.C. a

formal charge was framed and the charge is then read over and explained to the accused and

he is asked as to whether he pleads guilty, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be

tried.

5. That in the course of hearing the prosecution examined two witnesses. P.W.l is one_....LSl ~~tF_.. ~tJ.a9\c:.\f~lita and P.W. 2 is the informant/victim Gita Kalita. The prosecution side also

1':l\)C\~ic:.\{\C\.GU k d d xh'b' d th "ah' E 1 N . th . .... . I.Su'o-C '{"'-' 0 mar e an elite e eJ ar as xt-. ow smce ere IS no mcnmmatmg matena m\<.a n'· \ •. ,>

the prosecution evidence against the accused hence the examination of the accused U/s. 313

Cr.P.C. is dispensed with. Moreover, the defence side declined to adduce evidence.

6. Points for determination:-

Whether the accused being the husband of the informant/victim, Gita Kalita meted

cruelty upon her both mental and physical demanding money and other articles and

inorder to coerce her to meet his unlawful demand chased her away from his house

on 18.11.2002 and thereby committed offence punishable U/s. 498-A I.P.C.?

7. Discussion, Decision and Reasons thereof:-

Heard arguments of both sides. Perused the Case Record. My findings are as

follows:-

The prosecution side examined altogether two (2) witnesses including the

informant/victim of the alleged occurrence. Now from the evidence of P.W. 1 it is

found that he is the brother-in-law of the accused and the informant is his sister. It is

further found from the evidence of P.W. 1 that he deposed as regard ~e fact of

torture or harassment upon his sister by the accused as per the version narrated to

him by his sister. However, the said P.W. 1 showed his ignorance about the dispute

between his sister and the accused. The said P.W.! is not corroborated by the

evidence of P.W. 2. Rather P.W. 2 being the most vital witness of the prosecution

side in her evidence did not made any incriminating statement against the accused

but deposed to the effect that merely out of misunderstanding she lodged the 'ejahar'

against the' accused. Now such a conduct on the part of the said witness not

supporting her own case being the vital witness of the prosecution is very much

obvious as because from her evidence it is further found that she has entered into a

mutual settlement with the accused (her husband) outside the Court. But the fact

remains that the prosecution could not adduce any iota of evidence to connect the

accused in any manner with the alleged crime.

ORDER

Hence considering the above discussions the accused is found not guiltY of

the alleged crime and he is accordingly acquitted.ir:' -·",l

~. '~,'I 8. '. The), sed bail-bond shall stand cancelled after expiry of the appellate period.I

.,..'

~-, :\~..

"9. PronotrrJed by me on this open Court, this 2200 day of September, 2014 (Monday)

'under my h.~ and seal of this Court. ~. "~ ~v

~ S ,~i,~."

Kamrup(Metro),

Guwahati .. ' . d ' I Magistrate-(S) No-~

SUb-OIVISIO; '01 Ju lCla. . t GuwahatiKamrup lMelro) DlstrlC •

IN THE CQU~T OF THE SDJM(S)-I, KAMRUP {MET~Q),

GUWAHATI, ASSAM.,G.R.C;ase No. 5446/2002

U/s. 498-A I.P.C.

STATE

v.Ramen Kalita @ Robin Kalita

.••Accused.

P.W.!- Shankar Kalita; and

P.W. 2- Gita Kalita (Informant/Victim).

2. DEFENCE WITNESSES:NIL.

TS Y PROSECUTION SIDE:.I.R. ('Ejahar').

Y DEFENCE SIDE:

Of

SD (S)-I,Kamrup(Metro ),Guwahati. NQ~

'cia\ M89iS\ta\ • .(S~\'I~SUb.Di'1iS\O~$J~~\O\ttr\c\, GUWKamtUP \. e