Samsul Haque s/o. Late Mubarak Ali vs State Of Assam

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2025 Supreme(Gau) 1434

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Samsul Haque s/o. Late Mubarak Ali – Appellant
VERSUS
The State Of Assam – Respondent
Crl.A./336 of 2024
Decided on : 26-09-2025

Important Points

The conviction under Section 326A IPC for acid attack stands affirmed as the victim's testimony, supported by medical evidence, was credible despite minor inconsistencies.

Subject

Criminal Law - Assault

Act Referred

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.313, S.326(a), S.374(2)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.307, S.326(a)

Headnote

(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 326A - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Conviction for acid attack - Appellant challenged conviction and sentencing to ten years' rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/- - Prosecution established that the appellant threw acid on the victim causing grievous injuries - Evidence of the victim identified the appellant by voice, consistent with previous threats by the appellant - Delay in lodging FIR was satisfactorily explained by victim's recovery time post-attack - No compelling reason to disregard the victim's testimony despite minor contradictions. (Paras 2-42)

(B) Evidence - Injured Witness - Testimony of injured witnesses holds greater evidentiary value and should not be lightly dismissed unless compelling reasons exist. (Para 40)

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : MR H R A CHOUDHURY, MR. A AHMED,MR. M A CHOUDHURY,MR. I U CHOWDHURY
For the Respondent: PP, ASSAM, MR H R CHOUDHURY(R-2),K MAINUDDIN(R-2), A S PRODHANI (R-2),S. TALUKDAR(R-2)

Table of Content
1. prosecution established the incident of acid attack (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. conviction upheld based on credible witness testimony (Para 7 , 38)
3. argument raised on lack of evidence and inconsistencies (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12)
4. delay in filing fir and its implications discussed (Para 14 , 15 , 16)
5. decision of trial court confirmed, appeal dismissed (Para 41 , 42)

JUDGMENT :

MITALI THAKURIA, J.

1. Heard Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. R. Deka, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. K.K. Das, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam for the State respondent No.1 and Mr. H.R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

2. By filing this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment and order dated 16.08.2024 passed in Session Case No. 76/2019, whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj convicted the appellant, namely, Samsul Haque under Section 326 (A) of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for one year.

3. The case set up by the prosecution in brief is that as per the FIR, being lodged by the informant/victim on 17.06.2019, in the night, at about 2:30 a.m., accused Samsul Hoque of village Tillabari came to their house and called from outside for purchasing a hen and when the victim came out, accused threw acid on her face and body by a bottle and fled away. Thereafter, when the victim started screaming as she felt severe burning sensation on her body, the neighbouring people came to the place of occurrence and took the victim to Patherkandi Hospital and from there to Silchar Medical College & Hospital, Silchar.

4. After receiving the said FIR, the Officer in Charge, Patherkandi Police Station registered the same vide Patherkandi P.S. case No. 331/2019, under sections 326(A)/307 IPC. Thereafter, the investigating officer took up the investigation of the case and after completion of the investigation submitted the charge sheet under sections 326(A)/307 IPC, against the accused Samsul Hoque. When the accused entered his appearance, the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 307 /326 of the IPC against him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution, to bring home the charge against the accused has examined as many as five witnesses including the Medical Officer, Investigating Officer, the informant and the victim of the case. The defence took the plea of total denial at the time of recording his statement under Section 313 CrPC and two defence witnesses were also adduced to substantiate his plea of innocence.

6. Initially, the charge was framed under Sections 307 /326 of the IPC but subsequently, at the stage of argument, the charge was altered and was accordingly, framed under Sections 307 /326A of the IPC, which were read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty.

7. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj had passed the judgment and order convicting the accused/appellant, under Section 326A IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten (10) years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, with default stipulation.

8. Mr. H.R.A. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj had passed the impugned judgment without scrutinizing the evidence on record in its true perspective and thus came to a perverse finding, convicting the accused/appellant and hence, the same is liable to be set aside. He further submitted that there is no incriminating materials at all to justify the conviction of the appellant under Section 326A IPC and without considering the evidence of both the prosecution witnesses as well as the defence witnesses, adduced by the parties, the learned Sessions Judge, Karimganj had passed the impugned judgment and order of con