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
| 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
AI
The prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant administered a stupefying substance with intent to cause injury, leading to the acquittal.
Conviction under Section 328 of the IPC requires corroborative medical evidence; mere oral testimony is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt, including the need for concrete evidence and consistency in the c....
Conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain of evidence; mere suspicion or non-explanation of conduct is insufficient for establishing guilt.
The court upheld the conviction under Section 302 IPC since the accused was found fit to stand trial, and the defense of unsoundness of mind was not substantiated.
The court affirmed conviction under Sections 448 and 323 of IPC, citing insufficient evidence for rape charge under Section 376, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence.
The prosecution must establish the evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction; any acquittal based on insufficient evidence is justifiable under law.
When the essential material facts are disclosed in the material at Exhibit P4/FIR, but FIR is not a substantive evidence and it cannot be used to contradict the testimony of the eye-witnesses except ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.