This High Court dismissed an appeal against the acquittal of three accused persons convicted under Sections 307, 324, and 326 IPC for attempted murder and hurt. The court reaffirmed Supreme Court principles regarding appeals against acquittal.
Appeal dismissed; acquittal of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page No.# 1/16
GAHC010004362013
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : Crl.A./51/2013
ABDUS SAMAD
S/O LATE HAJI ABDUL SAHID, R/O BENGENAATI, WARD NO. 8, NAGAON TOWN UNDER NAGAON SADAR POLICE STATION IN THE DIST. OF NAGAON, ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM and ORS
2:MD. RAFIQUE
3:MD. MAFIQUE
BOTH SONS OF MD. ABDUL KADIR ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF VILL. DACCAIYABASTI UNDER DHING POLICE STATION IN THE DIST OF NAGAON ASSAM.
4:MD. ALTABUDDIN
S/O LATE ABDUL ALI R/O VILL. DHUPAGURI PATHAR UNDER DHING POLICE STATION IN THE DIST. OF NAGAON ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.U CHOUDHURY, MR.B M CHOUDHURY,MS.S CHOUDHURY,MR.D K KALITA
Advocate for the Respondent : MR.T C KHATRI, MR R BARUAH,MR.P C SARKAR,MR.H SARMA,PP, ASSAM,MR S ISLAM,MR. M U MAHMUD
Page No.# 2/16
Linked Case : Crl.A./35/2013
ABDUL KADIR S/O LATE HAZI ABDUL SAHID VILL. DHAKAIA BASTI POLICE STATION DHING DIST. NAGAON ASSAM. VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM REPRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ASSAM AT GAUHATI HIGH COURT.
-----------Advocate for : MR.T C KHATRI Advocate for : appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM
Linked Case : Crl.A./50/2013
ABDUS SAMAD S/O LATE HAJI ABDUL SAHID R/O BENGENAATI WARD NO. 8 NAGAON TOWN UNDER NAGAON SADAR P.S. IN THE DIST. OF NAGAON ASSAM.
VERSUS
THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
2:MD. ABDUL KADIR S/O LATE HAZI ABDUL SAHID R/O VILL. DACCAIYABASTI UNDER DHING POLICE STATION IN THE DIST. OF NAGAON ASSAM.
-----------Advocate for : MR.B M CHOUDHURY Advocate for : MR.H SARMA appearing for THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ORS
Page No.# 3/16
BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
ORDER
Date : 11-09-2025
Heard Mr. B.M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Addl. P.P. Assam appearing for the State and Mr. M.U. Mahmud, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4.
Page No.# 4/16
Samad by striking blows to him. The dao was reportedly snatched by the appellant, herein, from the Abdul Kadir and then Abdul Kadir fled away. Jiaur Rahman sustained severe injury due to the blow given by the accused. Basing on the said incident on the following day, i.e. 26-09-1998 the appellant, herein, lodged an FIR before the Dhing Police Station. Accordingly, Dhing P.S. Case No. 130/1998, under Section 147/ 148/149/ 326 IPC came to be registered. Upon conclusion of the investigation, the police laid the charge-sheet against Abdue Kadir, Md. Rafique (respondent No. 2), Md. Mafique (respondent No. 3) and Md. Altabuddin (respondent No. 4), under Section 334/ 326/ 307/ 34 IPC. The charge-sheet also having been filed under the provision of Section 307 IPC and the same now being exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagaon committed the case and accordingly, Sessions Case No. 69/1999 came to be registered.
Page No.# 5/16
Page No.# 6/16
matter and by concluding that the charges framed against respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, herein, were not established, proceeded to acquit them from the said charges.
Page No.# 7/16
the learned trial court being based on the evidence coming on record, the same would not mandate reversal by this Court.
Page No.# 8/16
blows to Jiaur Rahman. She deposed that on hearing their hulla except Abudl Kadir, remaining accused had left the place. The wife of the PW-1 who was also present in the place of occurrence was examined as CW (Court Witness) and she in her deposition had deposed that that on the relevant day at around 05:30 p.m. while she, her husband and daughter were near the pond of their house and her son gone for bringing a matchbox, after a short time they had heard the alarm of Jiaur Rahman and had rushed to the place of occurrence and had seen the accused Abdul Kadir and other accused persons striking blows to Jiaur Rahman by means of dagger.
Page No.# 9/16
gone to the place of occurrence and wherein he saw, PW-3 with injuries on his head, abdomen and other parts of his body. He further deposed that he had found the PW-1 at the place of occurrence and he had reported that the accused Abdul Kadir, respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, herein, and one Anisur Rahman had struck blows on them.
and in his deposition he had specifically stated that on examination of PW-3, he had found the following injuries that are present:
“1. One incised wound on the upper part of the right leg lateral aspect. Size 5”x1”x1”.
Page No.# 10/16
PW-6 the Doctor had further deposed that the injuries were fresh and there was fracture of the lower ribs of the left chest and the same was caused by sharp weapons. He further deposed that injury No. 2 was grievous and caused by sharp objects and the rest of the injuries were also caused by sharp object and were fresh. During his cross, PW-6 has stated that as there were fractures of ribs so he has mentioned as grievous and had deposed that the fracture of the ribs may be caused by blunt weapon.
trial had drawn a conclusion that the medical evidence was found supportive to the
evidence of PW-3 and the evidence of PW-3 was not impeached by the defence. Having drawn the said conclusion with regard the allegations levelled against the present respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the learned trial court had drawn the following conclusions:
“.........Though PW-1 has stated that all the accused persons assaulted Jiaur Rahman, but from his cross-examination, we come to know that before he arrived at the place of occurrence, other accused person except Kadir left the place. The evidence of PW-2 and CW-1 that they saw the accused persons assaulting Jiaur Rahman is found doubtful as reveals from our earlier discussion. Other PWs also did not seek the accused persons at the place of occurrence. That accused Rafique, Mofique and Altabuddin assaulted Jiaur Rahman, this fact does not appear to have been proved beyond doubt. Apart from that it reveals from the record that when Jiaur Rahman was sent to the shop-house to purchase a match-box, then on the
Page No.# 11/16
road the alleged occurrence took place. As such, according to me, it also cannot be believed that the accused persons had common intention to assault Jiaur Rahman or Abdus Samad since it was not known to the accused that Jiaur would come to purchase a match-box.”
evidence on record, the allegations against the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 cannot be held
to have been proved beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, proceeded to acquit them on the benefit of doubt and they were set at liberty.
415 . Paragraphs 36 to 42 of the aforesaid judgment being relevant are reproduced herein-below for ready reference:
“36. In Ramesh Babulal Doshi v. State of Gujarat 15 this Court said: (SCC p. 229, para 7)
While sitting in judgment over an acquittal the appellate court is first required to seek an answer to the question whether the findings of the trial court are palpably wrong, manifestly erroneous or demonstrably unsustainable. If the appellate court answers the above question in the negative the order of acquittal is not to be disturbed, Conversely, if the acquittal cannot at all be sustained in view of any of the above infirmities it can then and then only-reappraise the evidence to arrive at its own conclusions.‟
Page No.# 12/16
to reappreciate the evidence in acquittal appeal for the purposes of ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not. Probable view taken by the trial court which may not be disturbed in the appeal is such a view which is based upon legal and admissible evidence. Only because the accused has been acquitted by the trial court, cannot be made a basis to urge that the High Court under all circumstances should not disturb such a finding.
Page No.# 13/16
evidence to reach its own independent conclusion. However, it will not interfere with an order of acquittal lightly or merely because one other view is possible, because with the passing of an order of acquittal presumption of innocence in favour of the accused gets reinforced and strengthened. The High Court would not be justified to interfere with order of acquittal merely because it feels that sitting as a trial court it would have proceeded to record a conviction; a duty is cast on the High Court while reversing an order of acquittal to examine and discuss the reasons given by the trial court to acquit the accused and then to dispel those reasons. If the High Court fails to make such an exercise the judgment will suffer from serious infirmity.
Page No.# 14/16
bear in mind that there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and the accused is entitled to get the benefit of any doubt. Further if it decides to interfere, it should assign reasons for differing with the decision of the trial court.
(1) An appellate court has full power to review, reappreciate and reconsider the evidence upon which the order of acquittal is founded.
(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 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.”
(Supra) to the present trial, this Court finds that the view taken by the learned trial court
is probable view, which is based on legal and admissible evidence. It is also settled by the
Page No.# 15/16
decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the decision noted hereinabove that if the trial court acts on evidence to acquit the accused person the appellate court shall not interfere with such findings of the trial court, thus this Court while sitting in judgment over an acquittal the paramount consideration of the Court ought to avoid miscarriage of justice. Thus, it is only when the trial court has taken a view based on no legal evidence or upon conjectures and hypotheses, the High Court is entitled to re-appreciate the evidence in an appeal against acquittal for the purpose of ascertaining as to whether the accused has committed any offence or not. As already held hereinabove, the view taken by the learned trial court being a probable view and the same also being supported by the evidences coming on record, this Court would be slow to disturb such findings of trial court. Further, it is to be noted that in criminal cases if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be accepted. This Court does not find any compelling and substantial reason to interfere with the views taken by the learned trial court in the matter.
Registry to send back the trial court record, at the earliest.
JUDGE
Page No.# 16/16
GS
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate court should interfere with the acquittal of respondents 2, 3, and 4 in the Sessions Court.
Whether the view of the trial court acquitting the accused was based on probable evidence or conjecture.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chandrappa vs. State of KarnatakaExplained¶79
Chandrappa Vs. State of Karnataka, 2007 4 SCC 415 · Who else cites this
7 provisions across 2 enactments
ABDUS SAMAD
THE STATE OF ASSAM
MD. RAFIQUE
MD. MAFIQUE
MD. ALTABUDDIN
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
