1.st v. umesh saikia

27722224.CASE DIARY: 1
1. Umesh Saikia.

(u/s 341/ 323 of IPC)
Acquitted (Compromise/Contested)

The State
1.Umesh Saikia
Date of Evidence :26-10-10,20-11-10,07-03-11,29-08-11
Date of Argument : 29/10/2011
Date of Judgment : 31/10/2011
For the State :Ms. S.S.Yasmin
For the Accused :Md.A Rahim
The brief fact leading to the prosecution of above named
accused person, is that on 27/02/2010 at about 1 p.m when the cattle of the
accused person named above entered into the field of black pulse (Kola
Mah)grown by the informant and ate up them , on seeing this, victim
Jadumoni Saikia got out the cattle from the pulse field and taken them to
the river side. The accused then restrained Jadumoni and beaten up
mercilessly. When the informant’s wife came to save Jadumoni ,the accused
also beaten up his mother also. As a result both of them sustained injuries.
An F.I.R was lodged at Sipajhar Police Station. Ext.1 is the
Ejahar and Ext.1(1) is the signature of the informant. Ext.5 is the charge
sheet. A case was registered by Police u/s 341/323 IPC .
The accused person, in response to the process issued to them, appeared before the court. Particulars of offences u/s 341/323 of I.P.C are
read over and explained to the accused to which pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried, after copies were handed over and hearing both sides on
The prosecution side has examined seven witnesses in support of its case including IO and MO. The defense case is total denial and
adduced no evidence in defence. Seen the injury report . The accused is
examined u/s 313 CrPC. Heard arguments of both sides.
Whether the accused wrongfully restrained the victim Jadumoni Saikia at the river side? Whether hurt was caused to Jadumoni and his mother as alleged in the FIR? DECISION AND REASONS THEREOF
To arrive at a just decision on the points referred above, let it be examined the evidence on the record. The prosecution side, to establish the culpability of the accuseds, has examined seven (7) witnesses 1. Budheshwar Saikia
2. Jadumoni Saikia
3. Gamvir Deka
4. Lakhsman Deka
5. Dr.B.Hazarika Saikia
6. S.I Mahendra Sarma
7. Dr. Pramod Deka

I have gone through the same carefully. Pw1 is the complainant. From his deposition it is clear that on
the day of incidence pw1 was not present. He was out of station. He is not
an eye witness. In chief examination pw2, the one of the victim Jadumoni
stated the same thing as described in the Ejahar. In cross examination
Victim Jadumoni Deka told that though there were many people here and
there in the place of occurrence only Lakhsman Deka had witnessed the
incident. In cross also said that his mother had not seen the incident. But
interestingly prosecution did not placed her as witness. All prosecution
witnesses remained silent regarding injury of the other victim Damayanti
Deka. But in the Ejahar, complainant himself stated that Damayanti was
seriously injured by the accused. In chief the only eye witness pw4,
Lakhsman had said that on that day at the time of incident the accused only
keep on hugging the victim Jadumoni. Also Pw4 clearly stated that the
accused had not beaten up Damayanti as stated in the FIR. On the
examination of Medical officer ,she stated about the injury of Smti
Damayanti Saikia and silent about main victim Jadumoni Saikia. But inexamination, prosecution witnesses stated that no injury took place against Damayanti . From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses considered in to to, it is amply clear that the there is only one independent eye witness Lakhsman Deka. He stated that Damayanti Saikia was not hurt by the accused. But her injury report was furnished by MO. On the same hand Lakhsman stated that no assault or hurt was caused by the accused against the victim Jadumoni Saikia. Only he saw that both accused and victim Jadumoni Pulled and hugged each other. Also whatever complainant had described about the incident in the FIR were not corroborated by any other pws. Many contradictions arose between their statements. No supporting evidences were there. Prosecution totally failed to established the charges against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. . Upon careful consideration of the materials on record and oral testimony of the pws, I have reached the inescapable conclusion that the
charges u/s 341/ 323 of IPC is not established.
The accused person Sri Umesh Saikia , is therefore acquitted of charges u/s 341/ 323 of IPC and set at liberty forthwith. Bail bond is
cancelled and Bailer is discharged.
Dictated under the seal of the court and bearing my signature (PRANAB SARMA, AJS)

Source: http://darrangjudiciary.gov.in/1.st%20v.%20umesh%20saikia.pdf


Health Care Reimbursement Account Most Questioned Expenses IRS regulations periodically change, affecting the deduction from their income taxes. Publication 502 eligibility of certain expenses in Flexible Spending should only be used as a guide for determining Account Plans. The following will assist you in making eligible expenses under the Health Care your elections for t

Microsoft word - chemical descriptions for marcellus shale wells-fortuna.doc

Chemical Descriptions for Marcellus Shale Wells The purpose of this document is to allow a better understanding of the chemistry that is commonly used in stimulating a Marcellus shale well. An explanation of the entire completion process is needed to understand the closed system in which the chemicals are injected into the fluid system and enter an isolated and specific formation. Additional doc

Copyright © 2010 Medicament Inoculation Pdf