Juran Ali Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 8370 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Juran Ali Ahmed vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 7 November, 2025

                                                                        Page No.# 1/7

GAHC010209722025




                                                                 undefined

                              THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
     (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                                 Case No. : Crl.Pet./1166/2025

             JURAN ALI AHMED
             SON OF LATE ABDUL HAKIM
             VILL- RANGDIYA, P.S. GOBARDHANA, DIST. BAKSA, ASSAM



             VERSUS

             THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR
             REP. BY THE PP, ASSAM

             2:URMILA RAMCHIARY
             W/O LATE BABUL RAMCHIARY
             R/O KHATALPARA
              P.S. GOBARDHAN
             PIN-781364
              DIST. BAKSA
             ASSA

Advocate for the Petitioner   : MR. P K MUNIR, MR. A. GAYAN

Advocate for the Respondent : PP, ASSAM,




                                  BEFORE
                HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV KUMAR SHARMA

                                           ORDER

07.11.2025

1. This Revision Petition is directed against the impugned order dated Page No.# 2/7

19.06.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, Musalpur, Assam, in Sessions Case No.53/2025 framing charge against the accused petitioner under Section 302 IPC.

2. I have heard Mr. P.K. Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. R.J. Baruah, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam.

3. On 24.06.2024 one, Urmila Ramchiary, Wife of Late Babul Ramchiary, resident of Khatalpara, District -Baksa, Assam lodged a First Information Report before the Officer-In-charge, Simlaguri Police Station alleging that her husband was suffering from little knee pain. Because of the knee pain of her husband, the husband consulted with the owner of Asiful Medical Pharmacy of Major Chariali, of Juran Ali Ahmed, son of Abdul Hakim, Village Rangdiya, Police Station Gobardhana, District Baksa, Assam, and was given an injection and two tablets. Returning from the pharmacy, her husband's knee pain suddenly increased, and the time was around 10-11 a.m. After having lunch knee pain spiked. In the evening around 5 p.m, when the knee pain became unbearable, they took him to the Barpeta Medical College in a vehicle, but her husband died mid-way and they brought him back.

4. On receipt of the aforesaid First Information Report (FIR), the Officer In- Charge, Gobardhana Police Station registered a case being Gobardhana Police Station Case No. 89/2024 registered under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Code on 24.06.2024.

Page No.# 3/7

5. It is stated that the petitioner is the owner of a pharmacy named M/s Asiful Medical Pharmacy, the documents relating to the pharmacy i.e trade license and drug license etc; were seized by the investigating officer on 24.06.2024 and no incriminating medicine or articles have been recovered from the pharmacy of the petitioner. However, on 04.06.2025 the petitioner was issued a license to sell, stock or exhibit for sale or distribute by retail Drugs other than those specified in Schedule-C etc and to operate the pharmacy: M/s Asiful Medical Pharmacy.

6. It is further stated that the deceased husband of the informant, was working as a labourer at Hyderabad and while working at Hyderabad he sustained injuries on his knees two months before the alleged incident. He was provided with treatment by the company he was working with and was advised for check up after one month. The husband of the informant after coming back from Hyderabad did not go for check-up as advised. On gradual increase of knee pain the husband of the informant visited the pharmacy of the petitioner, and accordingly two Zerodol-P tablets were given by the petitioner and one pain killer injection (Inac) was administered by the petitioner upon the husband of the informant and further advised for treatment at Barpeta. On being so advised the husband of the Informant was being taken to Barpeta but he expired mid way.

7. It is submitted that after completion of the Investigation of Gobardhana Police Station Case No. 89 /2024 the investigating agency submitted Charge Sheet No. 09/2025 on 28.02.2025, showing the name of the present petitioner as accused sent up for trial for offence under Section 304 of the Indian Penal Page No.# 4/7

Code.

8. However, the learned Trial Court thought it fit to frame charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused petitioner, which order is reproduced hereinbelow, as follows :

"19.06.2025

1. Accused Juran Ahmed is present with his engaged Counsel Mr. S. Ahmed.

2. Heard both the sides learned advocates on the point of framing of charge.

3. Perused the materials available on record.

4. I/O of the case submitted Charge-Sheet against the accused u/s 304 of the IPC. Final Opinion of the doctor is that the deceased died due to organophosphorous insecticide poison. The allegation against the accused is that accused gave one injection to the deceased as a result of which his condition deteriorated and on his way to hospital he expired.

5. From the material available on record, FSL report, final opinion of the doctor regarding cause of death of the deceased, I find prima facie materials to proceed the case against the accused Juran Ahmed u/s 302 of the IPC.

6. Accordingly, formal charge u/s 302 of the IPC is framed against the accused Juran Ahmed and the contents of the charges are read over and explained to the accused to which he has pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

7. Issue summons to the PWS.

8. Prosecution is to take steps.

Fixing: 13.11.2025 for Evidence of Prosecution."

Page No.# 5/7

9. It is evident from the above that the learned Trial Court framed charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused petitioner on the basis of the Medical Report which opined that the deceased died of organophosphorous insecticide poison. A perusal of the record would show that the opinion of the Doctor based on the FSL Report, which found organophosphorous insecticide upon examination of the viscera of the deceased.

10. A perusal of the charge-sheet as well as the statements of the witnesses would reveal that all that the I.O could gather was that the petitioner administered an injection to the deceased and also gave him two tablets, which accordingly to the petitioner is an Inac Injection and Zerodol(P) tablets commonly used to be prescribed for alleviating pain. But the I.O could find no evidence at all that the injection administered to the deceased by the accused contained organophosphorous insecticide. Neither the syringe was found/seized in order to ascertain the existence of traces of the said substance, nor could the I.O seize any such stock of organophosphorous insecticide from the Pharmacy of the accused.

11. In order to bring home the charge under Section 302 IPC against the accused, besides proving the cause of death as organophosphorous insecticide poisoning, it would be incumbent upon the Prosecution to establish that what the accused petitioner had administered to the deceased by way of an injection was indeed organophosphorous insecticide poison. But their exists not an iota of material to establish the said fact. This is besides the fact that upon perusal of the entire material on record including the statements of all the witnesses, there has not emerged a single suggestion regarding any prior enmity between the Page No.# 6/7

accused petitioner and the deceased which would provide a motive for the accused to intentionally administer poison to the deceased. Even the medical literature in this regard indicates that it is extremely rare for organophosphorous insecticide to be injected upon a person and when administered through such parenteral route, it is extremely unlikely that the compound would reach the viscera of a person to whom it is administered. The most common occurrence is self ingestion of the aforesaid chemical in an attempt to commit suicide and in such circumstance, it is assured that existence of the said chemical would be found in the viscera of the person concerned. But for the purpose of the present judgment it is not necessary to discuss the medical literature or instances of such cases in view of what has already been discussed regarding the non- existence of any material connecting the act of the petitioner to the death of the deceased. To reiterate, there is no material to even indicate, much less establish that the accused person had administered organophosphorous insecticide to the deceased and there is no possibility that the Prosecution can alter that fact to its advantage in course of the trial.

12. With regard to the allegation of administering injection and prescribing medicines without any licence or authority of law by the petitioner, a separate case being C.R. Case No.120/2024 under Sections 18(a)(vi)/65/18(c)/18A/18B of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 punishable under Section 27(d)/27/28/28A is already proceeding against the accused petitioner.

13. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, Musalpur, Assam framing charge under Section 302 IPC against the petitioner is unsustainable and is accordingly set Page No.# 7/7

aside and the accused petitioner Juran Ahmed stands discharged in Sessions Case No.53/2025 pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Baksa, Musalpur, Assam.

14. The petition stands allowed accordingly.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant