Patna High Court
Md. Jamaluddin and Anr.versusThe State Of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- ALLOWED
- Bench
- PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
Holding
The conviction was set aside and the appellants were acquitted because the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Summary
The appellants, Md. Jamaluddin and Md. Salmuddin, were convicted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 147, 341 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, based on an alleged assault by an unlawful assembly armed with lathis. The prosecution relied on four witnesses but did not produce an injury report, nor were the investigating officer or the medical doctor examined. The defence argued that the allegations were vague, the witnesses did not specifically identify the appellants as assailants, and material contradictions existed in the testimony. The Patna High Court held that the lack of essential evidence and the non‑examination of key witnesses created a material infirmity in the trial court’s judgment. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, acquitted the appellants, and ordered the appeal allowed.
Issues considered
- Whether a conviction under Sections 147, 341 and 323 IPC can be sustained when the prosecution fails to produce an injury report and does not examine the investigating officer or medical doctor.
- Whether the presence of the accused with a weapon, without specific identification of the assault, is sufficient to prove the offences charged.
- Whether material contradictions in witness testimony warrant overturning a conviction.
Legislation cited
- Indian Penal Code — s. 147, 148, 149, 307, 323, 325, 341, 342, 504
Subjects
- criminal law
- assault
- unlawful assembly
- burden of proof
- benefit of doubt
- acquittal
- IPC sections 147
- IPC sections 341
- IPC sections 323
- evidence
- witness testimony
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (SJ) No.37 of 2016
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-21 Year-2006 Thana- SHRI NAGAR District- Madhepura
======================================================
1. Md. Jamaluddin Son of Late Md. Ludaiuddin
2. Md. Salmuddin Son of Late Md. Rabiduddin Both residents of Village -
Pokharia South Tola, Police Station - Srinagar - 8, District - Madhepura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State Of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Uday Chand Prasad, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Mukeshwar Dayal, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH
ORAL ORDER
7 01-04-2026 Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants
and learned Additional Public Prosecutors appearing for the
State.
2. This appeal has been filed challenging the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence 09.12.2015 passed
by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3 rd,
Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 291A of 2006 in connection
with G.R. No. 693 of 2006 arising out of Srinagar P.S. Case No.
21 of 2006 whereby and whereunder these appellants have been
convicted for committing offence under Sections 147, 341 and
323 of the Indian Penal Code and have been sentenced to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.
500/- each for committing offence under Section 147 of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2016(7) dt.01-04-2026
2/6
Indian Penal Code and in case of default of fine, to further
undergo imprisonment for two months; one month of
imprisonment for committing offence under Section 341 of the
Indian Penal Code and one year of imprisonment for
committing offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code.
All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on
13.08.2006, when the informant along with his brother was
returning after agricultural work, in the meantime, all the named
accused persons, including these appellants, forming an
unlawful assembly and armed with lathi and fatta, intercepted
them and assaulted them causing multiple injuries.
4. In this case, on the basis of the Fardbeyan of the
informant, Sri Nagar P.S. Case No. 21 of 2006 was registered
for the offence punishable under Section 147, 148, 341, 342,
323 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code against seven named
accused persons, including these appellants and after completion
of the investigating, charge-sheet was submitted under Sections
147, 148, 149, 323, 325, 307 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code
against five accused persons and thereafter, cognizance was
taken vide order dated 07.10.2006 against all seven F.I.R.
named accused persons and thereafter, the case of these
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2016(7) dt.01-04-2026
3/6
appellants was separated and was committed to the learned
Sessions Court. Accordingly, charges were framed under
Sections 147, 341, 323 and 307 against both these appellants.
5. In this case, in order to bring home guilt of these
two appellants, the prosecution has examined altogether four
witnesses. P.W. 1, namely Md. Masroouddin and P.W. 2, namely
Md. Mustakib, are independent witnesses. P.W. 3, namely Md.
Kaisar, is brother of the informant and also an injured witness.
P.W. 4, namely Md. Istafaque, is the informant. On the other
hand, the defence has not produced any oral or documentary
evidence.
6. After hearing the parties, the learned trial court
convicted these appellants and sentenced them, as indicated in
the opening paragraph of this order.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants assails
the order of conviction and sentence on various grounds. He
contends that the impugned order of sentence and conviction are
fit to be quashed and set aside on the basis of facts and
circumstances. The learned trial court has committed grave
illegality in facts and law both. He submits that in this case,
allegation of assault is general and omnibus and no specific
accusation of overt act has been alleged against these appellants.
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2016(7) dt.01-04-2026
4/6
P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, who are independent witnesses, have only
corroborated that these appellants were present at the place of
occurrence armed with lathi but have not disclosed as to who
assaulted the injured. It is further contended that in this case, the
Investigating Officer has not been examined. Non-examination
of the Investigating Officer has caused great prejudice to the
defence of the these appellants as they were not able to
contradict the evidence of the witnesses and the place and
manner of occurrence could not be proved. It is further
contended that the doctor was also not examined and the injury
report has also not been exhibited and as such, there is no injury
report on record in support of the allegations levelled against the
accused persons. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove the
case beyond reasonable doubts and thus, the trial court has
wrongfully convicted these appellants ignoring material
contradictions and hence, the appellants are fit to be acquitted.
8. On the other hand, learned Additional Public
Prosecutor for the State has submitted that there is no need of
any interference in this appeal since the prosecution witnesses
have supported the corroborated the prosecution story and there
is no reason to differ with the findings of the learned trial court
and the judgement of conviction and order of sentence are
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2016(7) dt.01-04-2026
5/6
justified and legal.
9. From going through the rival submissions,
evidences and upon perusal of the records, this Court finds that
the impugned order of conviction and sentence suffers from
material infirmity. In this case, the Investigating Officer has not
been examined, which has caused great prejudice to the defence
as the defence could not get documentary evidence, explain the
material discrepancy and contradict the witnesses. Neither the
doctor was examined nor the injury report was exhibited and as
such, there is no injury report on record to substantiate the
allegation of assault as levelled in the F.I.R. and thus, the
allegation of assault could not be corroborated. Moreover, from
bare perusal of the impugned order of conviction and sentence,
this Court finds that there is material contradiction in the
deposition of the witnesses.
10. Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the
case, as discussed above, it is evident that the prosecution has
failed to prove the guilt of these appellants beyond reasonable
doubt and thus, the appellants are entitled to be given the benefit
of doubt.
11. In that view of the matter, the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.12.2015 passed by
Patna High Court CR. APP (SJ) No.37 of 2016(7) dt.01-04-2026
6/6
the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, 3 rd,
Madhepura in Sessions Trial No. 291A of 2006 in connection
with G.R. No. 693 of 2006 arising out of Srinagar P.S. Case No.
21 of 2006 are hereby set aside with respect to these appellants
only.
12. Appellants, above named, are acquitted of all the
charges and are discharged from the liability of the bail bonds in
connection with this case.
13. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed.
14. Interlocutory application/s, if any, also stands
disposed off.
(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J)
shashank/-
U T
Checking your session…