SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Gau) 2112

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Md. Jahidul Islam @ Khan, S/o. Sukur Ali Khan – Petitioner 
Versus
The State Of Assam – Respondent 
Crl. A. No.343 of 2013
Decided On : 16-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M.U. Mondal, Mr. J. Islam, Mr. H.L. Maurya, Mr. H.R. Ahmed.
For the Respondent: Mr. R.J. Baruah, Addl. P.P. Assam.

The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant administered a stupefying substance with intent to cause injury, leading to the acquittal.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 328 - Appeal against conviction - Allegations of administering stupefying substance to facilitate theft - Trial Court convicted appellant under Section 328 IPC for mixing drugs in food - Prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the appellant’s intent or action - Lack of forensic evidence and contradictions in witness testimonies led to acquittal - Appellant was previously acquitted of theft charges under Sections 457 and 380 IPC - Conviction and sentence set aside. (Paras 3, 10, 16, 17)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for administering a stupefying substance to the informant and his family leading to their incapacitation and subsequent theft. The incident allegedly occurred on 28.05.2010, when the appellant was seen mixing a drug into the family’s dinner.

Findings of Court:
The Trial Court concluded that evidence did not reliably establish the appellant's actions or intent under Section 328 IPC.

Issues: The main issues included whether the prosecution had sufficiently proven the elements of the crime under Section 328 IPC and whether the appellant’s actions could be directly linked to the alleged incident.

Ratio Decidendi: The appellate court found that the prosecution’s evidence was insufficient and inconsistent, failing to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant had administered a stupefying substance. The case was primarily based on witness statements with significant contradictions and no supporting forensic evidence.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.

Table of Content
1. overview of the prosecution's case (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments from the appellant's counsel (Para 4 , 5)
3. arguments from the state prosecutor (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. analysis of section 328 ipc requirements (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
5. assessment of evidence and contradictions (Para 12 , 13 , 14)
6. court's evaluation of prosecution evidence (Para 15 , 16)
7. final judgment and orders (Para 17 , 18 , 19)

JUDGMENT :

N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.

Heard Mr. M. U. Mondal, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing for the State.

2. The present appeal has been instituted assailing the Judgment dated 12-09-2013 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Goalpara, in Sessions Case No.143/2011, convicting the appellant, herein, under Section 328 IPC and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 (five) years along with payment of fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand) in default to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for another 6 (six) months.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that one Maza Sheikh of village Simlabari in the district of Goalpara had lodged an FIR before the Officer-In-Charge Lakhipur P.S on 29.05.2010. The said FIR was registered as Lakhipur P.S Case No.149/2010 under Sections 328/457/380 IPC. In the said FIR, it was alleged that after breaking open the door of the house of the informant, the appellant, herein, who had administered stupefying substance to the informant and his family members making them loose their senses, along with 2 other co-accused committed theft in respect of some jewelry articles including a cash amount of Rs.24,500/- (Rupees Twenty Four Thousand Five Hundred). It was further alleged that on the following day of the incident, the appellant, herein, was rounded up by the members of the village defence party and he was subsequently handed over to the police. The offence committed by the appellant, herein, was projected to have been committed on the night of 28.05.2010.

It is the projection of the prosecution of the incident, that the appellant, herein, on 28.05.2010 at around 7 p.m., had visited the house of the informant. At the relevant point of time, the wife of the informant was inside the kitchen, cooking dinner. After having paced up and down, the appellant by lighting his ‘biri’ had gone inside the kitchen and thereafter, he had taken out something and threw it in the curry that was being cooked on the hearth and then left the place. It is alleged that the appellant had again come back to the house of the informant after a short while and enquired whether all the inmates of the house had taken their meal. The informant and his family members, after finishing their household works, had taken dinner together. After taking the dinner, the members of the household, barring Regina Khatun, i.e. the daughter of the informant who had not taken dinner, were in deep sleep. Regina Khatun woke up at midnight on feeling the weight of the hand of one of her sisters on her body and then she noticed that the front door of the house was open. She raised a hue and cry, hearing which neighbouring people came to the spot and they found all the inmates of the house in senseless condition and to be vomiting endlessly. The family members of the informant were shifted to the hospital where they were provided treatment. On regaining senses, the following day, the FIR came to be lodged by the informant.

On receipt of the said FIR, Lakhipur P.S Case No.149/2010 under Section 328/457/380 IPC came to be registered. On conclusion of the investigation, the police laid a charge-sheet against the appellant and others under Sections 328/457/380 IPC. The other accused were shown as absconders.

The case being found to be triable by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, the same was committed to the said Court. In the meanwhile, the other co-accused had also surrendered before the Court.

The learned Trial Court on appreciating the materials coming on record fr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top