# MD. MONIR ALAM v. STATE OF BIHAR

- **Citation:** [2009] 16 S.C.R. 522
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2009-11-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2003
- **Bench:** Harjit Singh Bedi, Dr. 8.S. Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/md-monir-alam-v-state-of-bihar-25341
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
t,
c
s.4 - Release of offender on probation of good conduct
- Conviction of offender by trial court along with others ulss
304 (part-II) and 323 /PC with a sentence of three years
observing that the incident was in fact a free fight - High Court
modifying the conviction to one uls 304 (part-11)1149 and s.323
D /PC -
Held: Offender has secured a Doctorate and
employment as a Senior Assistant Professor -
His
Jo "
professional qualifications show his expertise in his specialty
and also portray his association with prestigious organisations
worldwide in the field of strategic studies - His conduct and
E attainment after his involvement in the matter justify his
release on probation - He shall be released on probation u/
s 4 of the Act on the terms settled by trial court- Penal Code,
1860 - ss.304 (part-11)1149 and 323.
>
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
;
F No. 133 of 2003.
From the Judgment & Order dated 2.5.2002 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of
1999(S) (J).
G
R.S. Suri, Azim H. Laskar, Abhijit Sengupta and Bikas Kar
Gupta for the Appellant.
<
. Ritesh Kumar Chauhary, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar and
Anuj Prakash for the Respondent.
H
522
MD. MONIR ALAM v. STATE OF BIHAR
523
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the
following facts:
2. At about 3 P.M. on 26th of February 1992, a
.J demarcation of the land between the deceased lmteyaj Ali and
Manjoor Alam, the uncle of the appellant was being conducted
A
B
by the Revenue Amin. During the course of the demarcation, it
transpired that the house belonging to Manjoor Alam had fallen
C
in the portion falling to the deceased, lmteyaz Ali. As the Amin
proceeded to fix the pillars demarcating the land, a protest was
raised by Manjoor, and he attempted to interfere in the
proc~edings. lmteyaz Ali, however, intervened and requested
this relatives to allow the Revenue Officials to fix the pillars. This
D
led to an quarrel between the parties during which Manjoor Ali,
Kammurddin, Monir Alam and several others caught hold of
lmteyaz and on Kammurddin's exhortation assaulted with a
lathi. lmteyaz fell down to the ground whereafter Manjoor and
Monir Alam again assaulted him and when Md.Tufel, Fatma
E
Khatoon and Ajmeri Nisa came to intervene in favour of lmteyaz,
they too were assaulted. The parties were, however, separated
by the intervention of the Amir and other Officials and also the
,
~·Police Havildar who too was present to oversee the
demarcation. lmteyaz and the other injured persons were
carried to Barauli Hospital from where lmteyaz was referred to
F
Gopalganj and yet further to Patna where he succumbed to his
injuries. The defence of the accused was that during the course
of the demarcation in which the police Havildar was also
present, it was the complainant party who nad attacked them
with lathi etc. and injuries were caused to them by lmteyaz,
G
·1 ,Sahnawaj and others with lathis. A cross-case was accordingly
registered against the other set of accused as well. The trial
court, however, in the present matter, acquitted all the accused
on the charge of murder but convicted them under Section
H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 304(11) and 323 of the IPC and sentenced them to various terms
of imprisonment with the appellant Monir Alam being awarded
a sentence of three years on the premise that the incident was
in fact a free fight between the two parties. The matter was
taken in appeal by Monir Alam to the High Court. The High
s Court modified the conviction from one under Section 304(11)
and 323 simplicitor to one under Section 304(11)/149 of the IPC
and 323 of the IPC and also took up the revision filed by the
complainant against the acquittal of three of the accused,
namely Nisar, Uudus and Kummaruddin. The High Court held
c that the acquittal of some of the accused was not justified but
refused to interfere

## Text

[2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 522
A
MD. MONIR ALAM
V.
STATE OF BIHAR
(Criminal Appeal No.133 of 2003)
B
NOVEMBER 19, 2009
[HARJIT SINGH BEDI AND DR. 8.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]
Probation of Offenders Act, 1958:
t,
c
s.4 - Release of offender on probation of good conduct
- Conviction of offender by trial court along with others ulss
304 (part-II) and 323 /PC with a sentence of three years
observing that the incident was in fact a free fight - High Court
modifying the conviction to one uls 304 (part-11)1149 and s.323
D /PC -
Held: Offender has secured a Doctorate and
employment as a Senior Assistant Professor -
His
Jo "
professional qualifications show his expertise in his specialty
and also portray his association with prestigious organisations
worldwide in the field of strategic studies - His conduct and
E attainment after his involvement in the matter justify his
release on probation - He shall be released on probation u/
s 4 of the Act on the terms settled by trial court- Penal Code,
1860 - ss.304 (part-11)1149 and 323.
>
CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
;
F No. 133 of 2003.
From the Judgment & Order dated 2.5.2002 of the High
Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Appeal No. 84 of
1999(S) (J).
G
R.S. Suri, Azim H. Laskar, Abhijit Sengupta and Bikas Kar
Gupta for the Appellant.
<
. Ritesh Kumar Chauhary, Gopal Singh, Manish Kumar and
Anuj Prakash for the Respondent.
H
522
MD. MONIR ALAM v. STATE OF BIHAR
523
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. This appeal by way of special leave arises out of the
following facts:
2. At about 3 P.M. on 26th of February 1992, a
.J demarcation of the land between the deceased lmteyaj Ali and
Manjoor Alam, the uncle of the appellant was being conducted
A
B
by the Revenue Amin. During the course of the demarcation, it
transpired that the house belonging to Manjoor Alam had fallen
C
in the portion falling to the deceased, lmteyaz Ali. As the Amin
proceeded to fix the pillars demarcating the land, a protest was
raised by Manjoor, and he attempted to interfere in the
proc~edings. lmteyaz Ali, however, intervened and requested
this relatives to allow the Revenue Officials to fix the pillars. This
D
led to an quarrel between the parties during which Manjoor Ali,
Kammurddin, Monir Alam and several others caught hold of
lmteyaz and on Kammurddin's exhortation assaulted with a
lathi. lmteyaz fell down to the ground whereafter Manjoor and
Monir Alam again assaulted him and when Md.Tufel, Fatma
E
Khatoon and Ajmeri Nisa came to intervene in favour of lmteyaz,
they too were assaulted. The parties were, however, separated
by the intervention of the Amir and other Officials and also the
,
~·Police Havildar who too was present to oversee the
demarcation. lmteyaz and the other injured persons were
carried to Barauli Hospital from where lmteyaz was referred to
F
Gopalganj and yet further to Patna where he succumbed to his
injuries. The defence of the accused was that during the course
of the demarcation in which the police Havildar was also
present, it was the complainant party who nad attacked them
with lathi etc. and injuries were caused to them by lmteyaz,
G
·1 ,Sahnawaj and others with lathis. A cross-case was accordingly
registered against the other set of accused as well. The trial
court, however, in the present matter, acquitted all the accused
on the charge of murder but convicted them under Section
H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R.
A 304(11) and 323 of the IPC and sentenced them to various terms
of imprisonment with the appellant Monir Alam being awarded
a sentence of three years on the premise that the incident was
in fact a free fight between the two parties. The matter was
taken in appeal by Monir Alam to the High Court. The High
s Court modified the conviction from one under Section 304(11)
and 323 simplicitor to one under Section 304(11)/149 of the IPC
and 323 of the IPC and also took up the revision filed by the
complainant against the acquittal of three of the accused,
namely Nisar, Uudus and Kummaruddin. The High Court held
c that the acquittal of some of the accused was not justified but
refused to interfere in revision on the ground that the
proceedings had gone on for several years. The High Court
therefore in effect confirmed the judgment of the trial court. The
present appeal has been filed only by Md.Monir Alam who has
0 been awarded a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment.
3. Mr. RS.Suri, the learned counsel for the appellant has
raised several arguments during the course of hearing. He has
pleaded that in the light of the fact that the trial court had given
a positive finding that the incident was the outcome of a free
E fight and had taken place all of a sudden, it was not open to
the High Court to have modified the conviction to one under
Section 304(11) read with Section 149 of the IPC and that too
without appeal or notice to the accused though in the end the
High Court had, in fact, confirmed the judgment of the trial court.
F He has also submitted that the appellant, who had, in the
meanwhile, secured a very prestigious employment, should be
released on probation. He has pointed out that as both the
parties were very closely related to each other and had
admitted that the incident had happened all of a sudden with a
G cross case registered against the opposite party, some
consideration ought to be given to the appellant. He has also
put on record several documents to show the present state of
affairs.
H
4. We have considered Mr. Suri's submissions very
MD. MONIR ALAM v. STATE OF BIHAR
525
carefully. We see from the documents that the appellant has
A
secured a Doctorate and is presently employed as a Senior
Assistant Professor in the Department of Strategic and
Regional Studies, University of Jammu and that he had secured
this appointment in the year 1997. His professional attainments
have also been provided to us which shows his expertise in his
B
specialty and also portrays his association with prestigious
organizations worldwide in the field of strategic studies. We are,
,. therefore, of the opinion that his conduct and attainments after
J.
his involvement in this matter justifies his release on probation.
We, accordingly, dismiss the appeal but direct that he shall be c
released on probation under Section 4 of the Probation of
Offenders Act, 1958 on terms to be settled by the trial court.
R.P.
Appeal dismissed.