Case Background
This criminal appeal arose from an incident that took place on 24.08.2012 at about 5:00 PM in Village Birauli, P.S. Pupri, District Sitamarhi.
According to the written report lodged by informant Shamima Khatoon, she had gone to the house of one Md. Mushtaque to ask for money. At that time, one of the appellants, Md. Shahabuddin, allegedly came out of his house, abused her and questioned why she had come to that mohalla.
When the informant objected to the abuse, other accused persons, namely Md. Zahid, Md. Sagir Naddam, Amina Khatoon and Tarannum Khatoon, were said to have come out and started assaulting her with fists and kicks.
Hearing the commotion, her cousin Md. Dablu and her brother Md. Maqsood Alam came to save her. The allegation is that they were also assaulted. It was stated that Md. Shahabuddin and Md. Zahid hit Md. Dablu on his head with an iron rod. Further, Md. Shahabuddin, Md. Zahid and Md. Sagir allegedly assaulted Md. Maqsood Alam with a chhura on his head and with an iron rod on his arm. The informant also alleged that Md. Zahid and Amina Khatoon snatched her neck chain, gold earrings and anklet.
On this written report, Pupri P.S. Case No. 150 of 2012 was registered under Sections 341, 323, 324, 379, 504 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code against five accused persons, including the present appellants.
After cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. The Sessions Court framed charges against four accused persons, including the appellants, under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 307 read with Section 149 of the IPC. Later, by order dated 29.10.2015, the case of accused Md. Sagir was separated. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
The Trial Court, after recording evidence of six prosecution witnesses and hearing arguments, acquitted all four appellants of the charge under Section 307 IPC. However, it convicted them under Sections 341, 323 and 504 IPC; in addition, appellants Md. Shahabuddin and Md. Zahid were convicted under Section 324 IPC. They were sentenced to various terms of imprisonment and fine, with all sentences to run concurrently, by judgment and order dated 27.02.2016.
Aggrieved, the four convicted persons filed Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 166 of 2016 before the Patna High Court.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The appeal was heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar of the Patna High Court. The judgment is dated 22.10.2024.
The core question before the Court was whether the conviction recorded by the Trial Court was justified on the evidence, and if so, whether the sentence required interference.
The prosecution had examined six witnesses. P.W.-1, Md. Jannat Hussain, was the father of the informant. He was described as a chance witness who reached the place of occurrence on hearing the hulla and witnessed the incident.
P.W.-2, Md. Maqsood Alam, and P.W.-3, Md. Dablu, were injured witnesses. P.W.-4, Shamima Khatoon, was both the informant and an injured witness. P.W.-5, Phooldeo Chaudhary, was the Investigating Officer. P.W.-6, Shri Krishna Kumar Jha, was the doctor who medically examined the injured persons.
The medical evidence was important. On examining Md. Maqsood Alam, P.W.-6 found an incised wound of 6 cm x 1 cm x 1 cm on the occipital region of the head and bruises on other parts of the body. On examining Md. Dablu, he found a lacerated wound of 12 cm x 2 cm x 2 cm on the scalp and bruises on other parts of the body. On the person of informant Shamima Khatoon, he found bruises.
After the prosecution evidence closed, the accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They were confronted with incriminating circumstances that had emerged against them. They admitted that they had heard the prosecution witnesses but claimed that the evidence was false and they were innocent. They did not, however, offer any specific explanation about the individual circumstances put to them.
The Trial Court had already analysed this material and found the appellants guilty of the lesser offences, while acquitting them of the attempt to murder charge. In appeal, the High Court revisited the evidence and the arguments.
Counsel for the appellants argued that the judgment of conviction and sentence was not sustainable either in law or on facts. He said the Trial Court had not applied its judicial mind and had erroneously convicted them. He pointed out that the non-official witnesses were close family members of the informant and, therefore, interested witnesses whose evidence should not be relied upon.
It was further submitted that their testimonies were full of contradictions and that there was inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence. Counsel also argued that Section 324 IPC was not attracted on the facts. Lastly, he submitted that even if the conviction was upheld, the appellants were entitled to benefit under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act.
On the other hand, the learned APP for the State supported the Trial Court’s judgment. He submitted that there was no illegality or infirmity in the conviction and sentence because the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellants had been appropriately punished.
The High Court first considered the nature of the witnesses and the effect of their relationship with the informant. The Court noted that three of the witnesses, P.W.-2, P.W.-3 and P.W.-4, were injured witnesses, and P.W.-1 was the father of the informant who also claimed to have seen the occurrence after reaching on hulla.
The Court emphasised a settled principle of law: the testimony of a family member of the victim cannot be discarded merely because of the relationship. The proper approach is for the Court to be cautious in appreciating such evidence, but not to reject it solely on that ground.
The Court also reiterated another settled principle: evidence of an injured witness stands on a different footing and carries greater weight. Such evidence cannot be lightly discarded unless there are compelling reasons.
After going through the depositions, the High Court recorded that there were no major contradictions or discrepancies in their evidence that went to the root of the prosecution case. The injured witnesses and the informant were found to be consistent in their account, and hence, in the Court’s view, trustworthy.
The Court then compared the oral testimony with the medical evidence. It found that as per the doctor’s report, one victim had an incised injury and another had a lacerated wound, consistent with the allegations about assault by iron rod and chhura. Thus, the Court did not accept the argument of mismatch between ocular and medical evidence.
The Court further held that the appellants had committed the actus reus in furtherance of their common intention. On this basis, it concluded that the Trial Court had rightly convicted all the appellants under Sections 341, 323 and 504 IPC, and had correctly convicted appellants Md. Shahabuddin and Md. Zahid additionally under Section 324 IPC.
However, the High Court took a different view regarding the sentence. Considering the “aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case”, the Court held that all the appellants deserved the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. It also noted that they were already on bail.
Accordingly, instead of sending them to serve the custodial sentence imposed by the Trial Court, the Court directed them to enter into a bond without any surety to appear and receive sentence when called upon during two years from the date of the judgment. During this two-year period, they must keep peace and be of good behaviour. Once they execute this bond, they would be discharged from the liabilities under their existing bail bonds.
The Court then turned to Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, which deals with payment of compensation to victims. It held that the victims — Md. Maqsood, Md. Dablu and Shamima Khatoon — were entitled to compensation from the appellants.
The Court ordered that appellants Md. Shahabuddin and Md. Zahid shall pay Rs. 7,000/- each towards compensation, and appellants Amina Khatoon and Tarannum Khatoon shall pay Rs. 3,000/- each. From this total compensation amount, Md. Maqsood and Md. Dablu were each to receive Rs. 8,000/-, and the remaining Rs. 4,000/- would go to Shamima Khatoon.
In the final result, the appeal was “part allowed”. The High Court upheld the conviction but modified the sentence by granting probation and directing payment of compensation. It also recorded, in terms of Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, that the appellants shall not suffer any disqualification on account of this conviction.
The Court directed that the lower court record be returned forthwith and noted that any interlocutory applications stood disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This decision of the Patna High Court is significant for several reasons.
First, it shows that courts do not automatically reject the evidence of family members or relatives of a victim. If their statements are consistent, supported by medical evidence and not shaken in cross-examination, their testimony can be relied upon, even if they are closely related.
Second, the judgment underlines the special value of evidence from injured witnesses. For victims and their families, it means that promptly reporting the incident and obtaining medical examination can strongly support their case.
Third, the Court balanced punishment with reform. While it confirmed the conviction for wrongful restraint, hurt, causing hurt with dangerous weapon and insult, it used the Probation of Offenders Act to avoid sending the offenders to jail. Instead, it put them on a bond for two years and insisted that they maintain good behaviour. This is important where parties are from the same village or community and long jail terms may worsen tensions.
Fourth, the Court ensured that victims were not forgotten. Using Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, it ordered direct monetary compensation to the injured persons. This provides some financial relief to those who suffered physical injuries.
Finally, by applying Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the Court clarified that the appellants will not suffer legal disqualifications because of this conviction. This reduces long-term consequences while still recognising that the offence was proved.
For ordinary people in Bihar, this judgment shows how the Patna High Court can both protect victims of violence and at the same time use probation laws to give offenders a chance to reform, especially when they are already on bail and the incident is older.
Legal Issues and Answers
- Issue: Should the conviction of the appellants under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 324 of the IPC be set aside on the ground that the main witnesses were related to the informant and their testimony allegedly contradicted the medical evidence?
Answer: No. The Patna High Court held that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded merely due to relationship, particularly when some are injured witnesses. Their statements were consistent and supported by medical evidence, so the conviction was upheld. - Issue: If the conviction is upheld, should the appellants be granted the benefit of probation under the Probation of Offenders Act?
Answer: Yes. Considering the facts and circumstances, the Court granted the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act to all appellants, directing them to execute bonds for two years and modifying the original custodial sentence. - Issue: Are the injured victims entitled to compensation from the appellants in addition to the grant of probation?
Answer: Yes. Applying Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act, the Court ordered specific amounts of compensation to be paid by each appellant to the injured victims.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment does not mention or rely upon any specific reported case law by name or citation.
Case Details
Case Number: Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 166 of 2016, arising out of Pupri P.S. Case No. 150 of 2012, District Sitamarhi
Case Title: Md. Sahabuddin & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Anr.
Citation: 2024 (4) PLJR 695
Court: High Court of Judicature at Patna
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Kumar
Date of Judgment: 22.10.2024
Advocates: Mr. Dinesh Jha, Advocate and Mr. Abhineet, Advocate for the appellants; Mr. Z. Hoda, APP for the State
Nature of the Case: Criminal appeal (against judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court)
Offences Involved: Sections 341, 323, 324, 504 IPC (with initial charge also under Section 307 IPC, of which the appellants were acquitted)
Final Outcome: Appeal partly allowed; conviction upheld; sentence modified by granting benefit of probation under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, directing execution of bonds and ordering compensation to victims; no disqualification to follow under Section 12 of the Act.
Link to Judgment: Click here to read the full judgment of the Patna High Court
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar, you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
