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

2026 Supreme(Gau) 925

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) 
MICHAEL ZOTHANKHUMA, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, JJ.
Abul Basfar, S/o. Md Abdul Khaleq – Appellant 
Versus
The State Of Assam, Represented By Pp,Assam And Ors. – Respondent
Crl.A. 247 of 2025, Crl.A. 30 of 2024
Decided On : 20-04-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Monzur K. Choudhury, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ms. S.H. Bora, APP, Assam. Mr. M.K. Choudhury, Adv., Mr. P.K. Deka, Adv., Mr. M. Khan, Adv.

An appellate court will only interfere with an acquittal if the trial court's finding is perverse. Furthermore, a conviction for murder under Section 300 may be reduced to culpable homicide under Exception IV if death occurs during a sudden, unpremeditated fight without the perpetrator taking undue advantage.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 149, 300 Exception IV, 302, 304 Part-I, 325, 326 - Appeal against conviction and acquittal - Sudden fight - Quantum of sentence - Appellate court's scope in criminal appeals - Principles for interference with acquittal - Vicarious liability - Unlawful assembly.

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Court exercising appellate jurisdiction must determine if the verdict is legally sound; interference with an acquittal is only warranted if the judgment manifests patent perversity or if no two reasonable views are possible. (Paras 51, 52)

(C) Culpable Homicide - Applicability of Exception IV to Section 300 IPC in a sudden, unpremeditated conflict over property; without evidence of a prior design to kill, the act constitutes culpable homicide not amounting to murder. (Para 44)

(D) Unlawful Assembly - Determining vicarious liability under Section 149 requires proof of sharing a common object or knowledge of the likelihood of the offense; mere presence at the scene without evidence of participation or shared intent does not render an individual liable for the crimes of others. (Paras 47-49)

Facts of the case:
A physical altercation occurred between two groups regarding a land dispute, resulting in the death of one individual upon sustaining fatal injuries during the conflict. The trial court convicted one participant of murder and acquitted the remaining individuals accused of being part of an unlawful assembly. Cross-appeals were filed challenging both the conviction and the subsequent acquittal.

Findings of Court:
The court observed significant inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses and found no credible evidence to establish that the accused had formed a common object to commit the crime. The incident arose from a sudden quarrel over possession of land, and the court found that the fatal blow was delivered in the heat of the moment without premeditation, attracting the exception for sudden fights.

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 302 IPC was justified or if the offense fell under the exceptions to Section 300 IPC, and whether the trial court correctly acquitted the co-accused.

Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the act was a result of a spontaneous struggle rather than a premeditated crime, thus modifying the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. In the absence of evidence supporting a common object, it held that the acquittal of the co-accused was consistent with the evidence as mere presence at the site of a conflict does not satisfy the requirement for vicarious liability under the relevant penal provisions.

Result: Conviction modified from Section 302 to Section 304 Part-I; sentence reduced to ten years rigorous imprisonment; appeals against acquittal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. procedural consolidation of cross-appeals regarding a single judgment. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. history of litigation, previous remand, and the facts of the underlying conflict. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
3. summary and analysis of evidence including medical reports and witness testimony. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
4. application of exception iv to section 300 ipc in sudden land dispute fights. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46)
5. vicarious liability under section 149 ipc and appellate scope regarding acquittals. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53)
6. final orders, modification of conviction to section 304 part-i, and dismissal of acquittal challenges. (Para 54 , 55 , 56)

Judgment :

M. Zothankhuma, J.

1. Heard Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant in Crl. A. 247/2025 and Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3. Also heard Mr. M. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 4, 6 & 7 and Ms. S. H. Borah, learned Addl. PP for the State. Mr. P. K. Deka, learned counsel appears for the appellant in Crl. A. 30/2024 and Mr. M. K. Choudhury, learned counsel appears for the respondent No. 2.

2. Crl. A. 247/2025 and Crl. A. 30/2024 have both put a challenge to the impugned judgment dated 22.12.2023 passed by the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Sessions Case No. 105/2023. In Crl. A. 30/2024 the appellant Fazar Ali has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.15,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for three months. On the other hand, 6 co-accused have been acquitted of the charge under Sections 302/149 and also under Sections 148/325/326 by the same impugned judgement. Crl. A. 247/2025 has been filed by the informant, who has put to challenge the acquittal of the 6 co-accused by the learned Trial Court, while the appellant in Crl. A. 30/2024 has challenged his conviction under .

3. As the challenge in both the appeals relate to the same impugned judgment dated 22/12/2023, the appeals are being decided by this common judgement and order.

4. The facts of the case, in brief, is that prosecution witness-3, (PW-3), who is the younger brother of the deceased Musa Alam, submitted an FIR dated 18/04/2007 to the Officer-in- Charge Jamuguri Police Station, stating that while the deceased and his brother-in-law (Mainul Haque), were ploughing the land that they had taken on lease for 2 years from Bhimlal Sharma and Khargalal Sharma, the accused persons, viz, 1) Najrul Haque, S/o. Unknown, (2) Fazar Ali, S/o. Unknown, (3) Asiya (Achiya) Begum, W/o. Fazar Ali, (4) Ainul Haque, S/o. Md. Fazar Ali, (5) Gulzar Hussain, S/o. Unknown, (6) Chabirul Haque, S/o. Unknown, (7) Sirajul Haque, S/o. Unknown and (8) Jamaluddin S/o. Unknown, residents of Kasomari, P.S. Jamuguri, attacked the deceased Musa Ali and one Mainul Haque with lathis and dao. They both sustained grievous injuries and Musa Ali passed away around 7.30 a.m, while being taken to Dholaibhil Hospital. Pursuant to the FIR, Jamuguri P.S. Case No. 42/2007, under Section 147/148/149/325/326/302 IPC was registered.

5. The case was entrusted to PW-16, who was the First Investigating Officer. Thereafter, on the transfer of PW-16, the case diary was handed over to PW-15, who submitted the charge sheet, wherein, a prima facie case under section 147/148/149/325/326/302 IPC was found established against 1) Md. Fazar Ali, S/o: Lt. Kurjat Ali, 2) Md. Ainul Haque, S/o: Md. Fazar Ali, 3) Md. Gulzar Hussain S/o: Abubakkar Siddique, 4) Smti. Achiya Khatun, W/o: Md. Fazar Ali, 5) Md. Chabirul Haque, S/o: Lt. Abubakkar Siddique, 6) Md. Nazrul Haque Islam, S/o: Md. Idris Ali, all are residents of Kasomari, P.S. Jamuguri, 7) Md. Jamaluddin, S/o: Lt. Amiruddin, R/o: Laltapu, 8) Md. Sirajul Islam, S/o: Md. Idris Ali, R/o: Tengaguri, P.S. Lahari

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