Patna High Court
MD. SALAUDDIN @ MD. SALAHUDDINversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The appeal is dismissed and the acquittal of the respondents is upheld.
Summary
The appellant Md. Salauddin appealed against the acquittal of six co‑accused in a case arising from a land‑dispute‑related assault alleged to have occurred on 2‑Dec‑2008. The prosecution relied on the informant’s written statement and nine witnesses, alleging that the accused assaulted the informant with a gadasa, sword, rod and lathi, causing injuries. The trial court found the witnesses either interested or hostile, noted contradictions, and highlighted the 75‑day delay in the injury report and the absence of the first treating doctor, concluding that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused. On appeal under CrPC Section 372 (proviso), the High Court examined issues of delay in filing the FIR, the reliability of an injured witness amid a land dispute, and the sufficiency of medical evidence. Citing precedents on the double presumption of innocence and the limited power of appellate courts to disturb acquittals, the Court upheld the trial court’s finding and dismissed the appeal.
Issues considered
- The prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt despite delays and questionable medical evidence.
- The credibility of an injured witness in the context of an ongoing land dispute.
- The effect of the inordinate delay in lodging the FIR and injury report on the reliability of evidence.
- The scope of appellate court's power to interfere with an order of acquittal under CrPC Section 372 (proviso).
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 372
- Indian Penal Code — s. 307/34, 323, 324, 341, 447/34
Subjects
- appeal against acquittal
- double presumption of innocence
- injured witness credibility
- delay in FIR
- medical evidence
- IPC offences
- CrPC Section 372
- land dispute
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.939 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-41 Year-2008 Thana- JAMALPUR District- Darbhanga
======================================================
MD. SALAUDDIN @ MD. SALAHUDDIN Son of Md. Zamiruddin
Resident of Village-Jhagarua, Ward No. 7, P.S.-Jamalpur, District-Darbhanga.
... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Farhana Khatoon Wife Of Md. Heera Resident Of Villager-Jhagarua, P.S.-
Jamalpur, District-Darbhanga
3. Bablu Son Of Arif Hussain Resident Of Villager-Jhagarua, P.S.-Jamalpur,
District-Darbhanga
4. Md. Heera Son Of Md. Mohsin Resident Of Villager-Jhagarua, P.S.-
Jamalpur, District-Darbhanga
5. Shabbir Son Of Mustufa Resident Of Villager-Jhagarua, P.S.-Jamalpur,
District-Darbhanga
6. Shahnaz Khatun Wife Of Md. Shabbir Resident Of Villager-Jhagarua, P.S.-
Jamalpur, District-Darbhanga
7. Roksana Khatoon Wife Of Arif Hussain Resident Of Villager-Jhagarua, P.S.-
Jamalpur, District-Darbhanga
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar, APP
For the Respondents No.2 to 7: Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. SONI SHRIVASTAVA)
Date : 12-03-2026
Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Bipin Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
for the State and Mr. Pankaj Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the
Respondents No.2 to 7 .
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
2/15
2. The present appeal has been preferred under Section
372 (proviso) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
challenging the judgment and order dated 31.03.2023 passed by
the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Benipur,
Darbhanga in Sessions Trial No.421 of 2010 (arising out of
Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 41 of 2008) whereby and whereunder the
respondents no.2 to 7 have been acquitted by the learned trial
court from the charges levelled against them under Sections 323,
324, 341, 447/34 and 307/34 of the Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’).
3. The records of this appeal have been placed before
this Court for consideration of the prayer of the appellant for
setting aside the impugned judgment and order of acquittal.
Prosecution Case
4. The prosecution case is based on written application
of the informant, namely Md. Salahudddin (PW-4) that on
02.12.2008 at about 8 O’Clock while he was at the door of his
house, 7 accused persons namely, Md. Arif Hussain, Bablu, Md.
Heera, Md. Shabbir, Shahnaz Khatoon, Farhana Khatoon and
Roksana Khatoon came to his house and surrounded him from all
sides and at the exhortation given by Md. Arif Hussain to kill the
informant, Bablu assaulted him on his head by means of gadasa
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
3/15
causing bleeding injury to him. It is further alleged that Md.
Heera assaulted him on his head by a sword while Shabbir gave a
blow by iron rod on his head which hit his nose. Further,
Roksana Khatoon gave him a lathi blow near his left eye and the
assault by Shahnaz Khatoon by means of lathi hit his right wrist
and he fell down with the injuries, whereafter all accused persons
kept on assaulting him indiscriminately. The villagers assembled
and intervened on alarm being raised and the informant found
himself in the hospital (DMCH) undergoing treatment after he
regained consciousness. There is a further allegation that after
assault, the accused persons also committed loot in the house of
the informant and the reason for the dispute between the parties
was throwing of faecal matter in the drain which was adjacent to
the handpump of the informant and the occurrence took place on
objecting to the same.
5. On the basis of the written application, a formal
F.I.R. was registered, being Jamalpur P.S. Case No.41 of 2008.
The police, after completion of investigation, filed charge-sheet
bearing no. 14 of 2009 dated 23.04.2009 against four accused
persons namely Md. Bablu, Md. Heera, Shahnaz Khatoon and
Roksana Khatoon, while the other three accused persons were
not sent up for trial. However, learned Magistrate took
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
4/15
cognizance against all the F.I.R. named accused persons under
Sections 447, 321, 323, 324 and 307/34 of IPC by an order dated
05.03.2010, whereafter the case was committed to the court of
sessions vide order dated 06.07.2010 putting the accused persons
on trial. On receipt of the records, the learned trial court framed
charges against all the accused persons including respondent no.2
to 7 under Sections 323, 324, 341, 447/34 and 307/34 of the IPC
vide order dated 07.03.2011. Charges were explained to them to
which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. However,
in course of trial, one accused, namely Md. Arif Hussain died and
his named was expunged on 28.09.2015.
6. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case
during trial, has examined as many as nine witnesses in its
favour, while the defence has not examined any witness.
However, both the prosecution and the defence have exhibited
several documents. The list of prosecution witnesses and
documents exhibited on behalf of the prosecution and the
defence are mentioned hereinbelow in a tabular chart:
List of Prosecution Witnesses
PW-1 Tripurari Singh
PW-2 Md. Alumuddin
PW-3 Md. Jiyauddin
PW-4 Md. Salauddin
(Informant)
PW-5 Dr. Awadh Kumar
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
5/15
PW-6 Najim Hussain
PW-7 Haseen Ahmad
PW-8 Abdul Hafiz
PW-9 Ishrat Begam
List of Exhibits on behalf of Prosecution
Exhibit ‘1’ Signature of informant on fardbeyan
Exhibit ‘2’ Signature of writing of Dr. Awad Kumar on
the injury report of injured Md. Salauddin
Exhibit ‘3’ Signature of the then SHO of Jamalpur PS
namely NH Khan on formal FIR being
No.41/08
List of Exhibits on behalf of Defence
Exhibit ‘A’ CC of order-sheet dt. 23.06.2010 passed in
Jamalpur P.S. Case No.35/08
Exhibit ‘B’ CC of FIR of Jamalpur P.S. Case No.35/08
Exhibit ‘C’ CC of charge-sheet of Jamalpur P.S. Case
No.35/08
Exhibit ‘D’ CC of deposition of Naushad Ali
Exhibit ‘E’ CC of deposition of PW-2 namely Md. Heera
Exhibit ‘F’ CC of deposition of PW-3 Rukshna Khatoon
Exhibit ‘G’ CC of deposition of PW-4 Sahnaz Begum
Findings of the Learned Trial Court
7. Learned trial court after considering and analyzing
the materials available on record, including the evidence of
witnesses, found that all the witnesses examined in this case are
either related and interested or are having animosity with the
accused persons. The trial court has also found contradictions in
the statement of witnesses with regard to the place of occurrence.
The injury report has also been found doubtful as the primary
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
6/15
injury report was never brought on record by the prosecution and
the doctor who first examined the injured, i.e. the informant, was
also not produced for examination.
8. The learned trial court has also expressed its opinion
that the injuries received by the injured do not appear to have
been caused by sword and gadasa blows and has also considered
that the said injury report was prepared 75 days after the date of
the alleged incident making the same highly supicious. As such,
the accused persons (respondent no.2 to 7) were acquitted from
all the charges levelled against them by giving them benefit of
doubt.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellant
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in
support of the prosecution case, as many as, nine witnesses have
been examined and they all have supported the case of the
prosecution and have even given details of assault, attributing the
same to different accused persons. It has further been submitted
that serious injuries were caused to the informant for which he
was treated at Govt. Hospital at Kiratpur, from where he was
referred to DMCH. It has also been submitted that a false case
bearing Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 35 of 2008 (Exhibit-B) was
lodged by the accused persons against the informant in order to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
7/15
save their own skin. Learned counsel has thus submitted that the
judgment of the trial court acquitting the accused persons
(respondents 2 to 7) is based on erroneous consideration of facts
and law.
Submissions on behalf of the Respondents
10. It has been emphatically submitted by the learned
counsel for the respondents that the judgment of the trial court is
based on proper consideration of evidence available on the
record and as such, is a well-reasoned judgment. Learned counsel
for the respondents has submitted, at the outset, that there is an
inordinate delay in lodging of the First Information Report
regarding which no plausible explanation has been tendered by
the prosecution. While the occurrence is said to have taken place
on 02.12.2008, the fardbeyan of the informant was recorded on
12.12.2008 at the DMCH and the formal FIR was instituted as
late as on 17.12.2008, and such inordinate and unexplained delay
leads to the inference that the FIR has been lodged after due
thought and deliberation.
11. Learned counsel for the respondents has further
submitted that land dispute between the parties is an admitted
fact and it has also been admitted by the witnesses that the
accused side had lodged a case against the present appellant. The
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
8/15
plea taken by the prosecution that the same was lodged by the
accused persons in order to save their skin is totally false and
baseless as the case was lodged on behalf of the respondents with
due promptness, and was much earlier than the present case, in
point of time. It is further submitted that all the prosecution
witnesses are either interested or are at inimical terms with the
accused persons and besides, the place of occurrence has also not
been conclusively established by the prosecution as no objective
evidence seems to have been collected from the place of
occurrence.
12. The learned counsel has next invited the attention
of this court to the fact that neither the doctor, who first treated
the informant/injured, has been examined nor the primary injury
report, if any, has been brought on record. The doctor of DMCH
who was examined as PW-5 has found stitched wounds and some
injuries in the nature of abrasion, swelling etc., however, with
regard to nature of injury he has stated that the same could be
given by the first treating doctor at Kiratpur. It has thus been
submitted that the so called injuries received by the informant do
not appear to be caused by dangerous weapons like gadasa and
sword and in absence of the primary injury report, the nature of
injuries and other details do not get established. It has been
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
9/15
emphasized that there is virtually no record of treatment in the
period between 02.12.2008 i.e., the date of occurrence to
17.02.2009, when he was examined by the second doctor (PW-5) .
Thus, on the strength of these facts it has been submitted that the
very existence of injuries on the person of the informant (PW-4)
seems to be extremely doubtful and such a belated injury report
issued by the doctor (not being the first treating doctor), renders
the entire case of the prosecution doubtful.
Analysis and Consideration
13. Having heard learned Counsel for the appellant,
learned APP for the state and the learned Counsel for the
respondent No. 2 to 7, as also on the perusal of the records we
find that the appellant and the respondents are on inimical and
litigating terms, arising out of a land dispute and the same has
been admitted by all the prosecution witnesses. The immediate
cause for the alleged occurrence, as narrated by the prosecution,
was a petty dispute with regard to throwing of faecal matter in
the drain adjacent to hand pump of the informant by one of the
respondents, which was objected to by him, whereafter the
quarrel ensued between the parties and the acts of assault
allegedly took place.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
10/15
14. Although, the prosecution witnesses have tried to
put forth a case that assault was made by means of gadasa,
sword, rod etc., but there is complete dearth of evidence to show
that there was any pre-meditation or meeting of minds for such
act of assault and there was no occasion for the accused persons
to be armed with such weapons. The evidence rather discloses
that the incident, if any, happened at the spur of the moment,
upon a petty dispute.
15. However, upon perusal of records, we further find
that although the occurrence is said to have taken place on
02.12.2008, the fardbeyan with respect to the same, was recorded
on 12.02.2008 and the formal FIR was instituted on 17.12.2008,
and the prosecution has not come forward with any plausible
explanation for such inordinate delay. Moreover, even as per the
prosecution case, it was only the informant who got injured and
there is no circumstance to show as to what deterred other
witnesses of the case, who are mostly the family members of the
informant, from promptly lodging an FIR.
16. Besides the delay in lodging of FIR, another
glaring fact which caught the attention of this court was that the
injury report (Exhibit - 2) of the informant (PW-4) was prepared
on 17-02-2009, which is after about 75 days of the date of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
11/15
alleged incident and although it is the case of the prosecution that
the injured was first treated at Govt. Hospital Kiratpur, from
where he was referred to DMCH, there is no evidence
whatsoever, either in the form of any injury report or by way of
examination of the treating doctor or any other person from the
Govt. Hospital to lend support to the factum of his treatment at
the said Hospital. In absence of the initial injury report and the
evidence of the first treating doctor, no sanctity can be attached
to an injury report which was prepared 75 days after the
occurrence and the least that can be inferred is that such an injury
report would not be relatable to an incident which took place
more than two months back. Moreover, the Doctor (PW-5) has
refrained from expressing any opinion on the nature of injuries as
the same are either stitched wounds or in the nature of abrasion
and swelling and the fact which virtually snaps the connection
between the injuries as disclosed in Exhibit- 2 dated 17.02.2009
with the alleged incident dated 02.12.2008 is that the Doctor has
given the time of injury to be more than 8 hours.
17. There is no doubt on the fact that the informant is
the injured witness and the evidence of an injured witness has a
greater evidentiary value and cannot be discarded or brushed
aside lightly unless strong and compelling grounds exist,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
12/15
however, even for accepting the testimony of an injured witness,
there has to be a prima-facie satisfaction that he is a truthful
witness and has no reason to falsely implicate the accused
persons. It has been laid down in the case of Santosh Vs. State
of Bihar reported in (2020) 3 SCC 443, that ordinarily, an
injured witness would not lie as to actual assailants but there can
be no presumption or any basis for assuming that the statement
of such a witness is always correct or without any
embellishments or exaggeration. In the present fact scenario, it
needs to be considered that the parties are on litigating terms
having a long-standing land dispute and as such it cannot be said
that there is no reason to falsely implicate the accused persons.
Moreover, the medical evidence being totally insufficient to lend
any support or credence to the testimony of the prosecution
witnesses, leads us to a finding that the prosecution has not been
able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubts.
18. The law is well settled that in cases of appeals
against acquittal, unless and until the finding of the learned trial
court is found to be palpably perverse or illegal, the appellate
court would not interfere with the same for the purposes of
reversing the finding of acquittal. This proposition has been
clearly laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
13/15
Nikhil Chandra Mondal vs. State of W.B., reported in (2023) 6
SCC 605 and also in a case of Vijay Singh @ Vijay Kr.
Sharma vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
2623.
19. Further, in the case of Rajesh Prasad vs. State of
Bihar, reported in (2022) 3 SCC 471, which also took note of the
case of Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka, reported in (2007)
4 SCC 415, the Hon’ble Apex Court specifically held that an
appellate court must bear in mind that in cases of acquittal, there
is double presumption in favour of the accused, one being the
presumption of innocence available to him under the principles
of criminal jurisprudence and the second being, acquittal of the
accused, thereby reinforcing the presumption of his innocence.
Paragraph-29 of Rajesh Prasad (supra) is being quoted
hereunder:
“29. After referring to a catena of judgments, this Court
culled out the following general principles regarding the
powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal
against an order of acquittal in the following words :
(Chandrappa case [(2007) 4 SCC 415 : (2007) 2 SCC (Cri)
325] , SCC p. 432, para 42)
“42. From the above decisions, in our
considered view, the following general principles regarding
powers of the appellate court while dealing with an appeal
against an order of acquittal emerge:
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
14/15
(1) An appellate court has full power to review,
reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the
order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 puts no
limitation, restriction or condition on exercise of such power
and an appellate court on the evidence before it may reach
its own conclusion, both on questions of fact and of law.
(3) Various expressions, such as, “substantial
and compelling reasons”, “good and sufficient grounds”,
“very strong circumstances”, “distorted conclusions”,
“glaring mistakes”, etc. are not intended to curtail extensive
powers of an appellate court in an appeal against acquittal.
Such phraseologies are more in the nature of “flourishes of
language” to emphasise the reluctance of an appellate court
to interfere with acquittal than to curtail the power of the
court to review the evidence and to come to its own
conclusion.
(4) An appellate court, however, must bear in
mind that in case of acquittal, there is double presumption in
favour of the accused. Firstly, the presumption of innocence
is available to him under the fundamental principle of
criminal jurisprudence that every person shall be presumed
to be innocent unless he is proved guilty by a competent
court of law. Secondly, the accused having secured his
acquittal, the presumption of his innocence is further
reinforced, reaffirmed and strengthened by the trial court.
(5) If two reasonable conclusions are possible
on the basis of the evidence on record, the appellate court
should not disturb the finding of acquittal recorded by the
trial court.”
20. Upon consideration of all the above-mentioned
facts and circumstances and after having examined and analyzed
the evidence led by the prosecution which is infested with some
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.939 of 2023 dt.12-03-2026
15/15
glaring deficiencies shaking the very foundation of the case, the
view of the trial court acquitting the accused giving them benefit
of doubt appears to be a probable view which cannot be held to
be unsustainable and even if two reasonable conclusions are
possible on the basis of evidence on record, in view of the settled
law, this Court does not find any reasonable ground to disturb the
finding of acquittal recorded by the trial court.
21. Therefore, considering that the impugned judgment
and order of acquittal is based on sound reasons, the same
warrants no interference as we do not find any illegality or
perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial court in
the impugned judgment dated 31.03.2023 passed by learned
Additional Sessions Judge-1st, Benipur, Darbhanga in Sessions
Trial No.421 of 2010 (arising out of Jamalpur P.S. Case No. 41
of 2008).
22. Accordingly, the present appeal stands dismissed.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
(Soni Shrivastava, J)
anand/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 19.03.2026
Transmission Date 19.03.2026
Checking your session…