Delhi District Court
State vs Parmod Kumar on 23 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHAIL JAIN
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
EAST, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, NEW DELHI
SC NO. 429/2022
FIR NO. 561/2021
PS : Patparganj Industrial Area
U/S: 328/379/34 IPC
STATE
VERSUS
Parmod Kumar
S/o Sh. Ulfat Singh
R/o Village Nangla Khargi,
PS Mirhachi, District Etah,
Uttar Pradesh.
Date of Institution : 11.04.2022
Date of Judgment : 23.04.2025
JUDGMENT
1. Prosecution has filed present chargesheet against accused Parmod Kumar in case FIR No. 561/2021, under Sections 328/379/34 IPC, PS Patparganj Industrial Area (in short 'PIA').
2. Case of the prosecution is that on 25.12.2021, at about 7.00 p.m., accused Parmod Kumar alongwith his associate Vicky (not arrested) made complainant Neeraj Mishra to sniff some intoxicating/stupefying substance and committed theft of his mobile phone, bag containing ATM card, PAN card, some money, tools and wrist watch. An information was given to the police on 29.12.2021 and DD no. 65A was recorded at PS PIA. Same was SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 1 of 19 assigned to SI Sunil (PW-10). IO prepared rukka and present case FIR No. 561/2021 was registered under Sections 328/379/34 IPC. Further investigation was assigned to SI Amit Chaudhary (PW3). Accused made disclosure statement in case FIR No. 109/2022, u/s 25 Arms Act, PS PIA, about commission of crime in the present case. Relevant documents were collected by the IO and accused was arrested in this case. On 04.02.2022, complainant Neeraj Mishra came to police station and made statement. Accused refused to participate in the TIP. Exhibits were sent to FSL. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against accused persons.
3. On compliance of provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C., case was committed to Court of Sessions and in turn was assigned to this Court for trial in accordance with law.
4. After hearing, Ld. Substitute Additional P.P. and Ld. Counsel for accused, charges under section 379/328/34 IPC were framed on 22.04.2022 against accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
5. Prosecution in support of its case examined 10 witnesses.
(i) PW-1 Neeraj Mishra is star witness of the prosecution being the complainant. He deposed that on 23.12.2021, he had come to Delhi from Leh. He stayed in Delhi for two days at Kapashera. On 25.12.2021, at about 7.00 p.m., when he reached Anand Vihar Bus Terminal for taking bus for Lucknow and was walking towards Pillar no. 211, two persons met him and one of them was accused Parmod Kumar. Accused told him that he was SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 2 of 19 going to Ayodhya and another person (not present in the Court) told that he was official of inter-city bus which PW-1 had to board for Lucknow. This witness started walking with them towards Pillar no. 211. Suddenly, accused caught hold of neck of PW-1 from behind and put a handkerchief on his nose and thereafter, this witness became unconscious for about half an hour. When he regained consciousness, he noticed that his mobile phone make Redmi Note-IV of silver colour, Rs.4500- 4600/- cash, two tool kits, his wallet containing his Aadhar Card, ATM Card, D/L, PAN Card and his wrist watch were missing. He deposed that when he was in semi conscious condition, they asked PIN number of his ATM Card and he disclosed the same to them. They withdrew Rs.3500/- (Rupees Thirty Five Hundred) from his account of SBI through ATM Card. When complainant regained consciousness, he went to Patparganj Police Station and told the entire incident to the police. However, they did not record his FIR and advised him to register his complaint online. Thereafter, he reached Anand Vihar Bus Terminal and boarded inter-city bus for Lucknow at 9.30 pm. He took treatment in Civil Hospital at Lucknow for two days, as he had sustained injuries on his tongue, which was caused in unconscious state. On 29.12.2021, he made call at no.112 on the advice of his relative & told the incident briefly on the said call and later, he came to know that his case was registered. On 04.02.2022, he returned to Delhi and gave his statement to police in PS. He deposed that nothing could be recovered in this case.
SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 3 of 19
(ii) PW-2 ASI Gajraj Singh has deposed that on 30.12.2021, he was posted at PS PIA. He was working as Duty Officer. At about 10.25 a.m., PSI Sunil handed him over a rukka. He made endorsement Ex.PW2/A on the same and registered the present FIR Ex.PW2/B. He also issued certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. After registration of FIR, he returned the original rukka and copy of FIR to PSI Sunil.
(iii) PW-3 SI Amit Chaudhary is the 2nd IO of this case. He has deposed that on 18.01.2022, he was posted at PIS PIA. On that day, the investigation of this case was marked to him. He came to know that one of the accused of the present case was arrested in FIR No. 109/2022, u/s 25 Arms Act PS PIA, who had confessed about his involvement in the present case. He met HC Sanjeev and obtained relevant documents of aforesaid FIR. Accused was arrested in the present case vide memo Ex.PW3/A and his personal search Ex.PW3/B was conducted. He made disclosure statement Ex.PW3/C. Co-accused Vicky could not be found.
(iv) PW-4 ASI Sanjeev Kumar is IO of case FIR No. 109/2022, u/s 25 Arms Act, PS PIA. On the intervening night of 17/18.01.2022, he alongwith Ct. Rajneesh reached Meerut point opposite Anand Vihar, ISBT, where HC Jagsoran and Ct. Karnal were present, who had apprehended accused Parmod @ Rinku. HC Jagsoran briefed him about the facts of the case and handed over custody of the accused, one sealed pulanda containing one button actuated knife, one small transparent container, allegedly containing one biscuit packet of Parle and another small SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 4 of 19 transparent container containing stupefying substance. Accused was formally searched vide memo Ex.PW4/A and arrested vide memo Ex.PW4/B in present case FIR No. 109/2022, u/s 25 Arms Act, PS PIA. Accused had made disclosure statement disclosing commission of crime in the present case. He informed SI Amit, IO of present case and custody of the accused was also given to SI Amit. This witness prepared site plan Ex.PW4/C, & has also proved copy of FIR no. 109/2022, PS PIA as Ex.PW4/D and certificate u/s 65 B of Evidence Act as Ex.PW4/E and notification issued by Delhi Administration as Ex.PW4/F.
(v) PW-5 HC Rajesh remained associated in the investigation of case FIR No. 109/2022, PS PIA. He has stated that accused was interrogated by SI Amit and accused made disclosure statement which is Ex.PW3/C. Accused was arrested in the present case by SI Amit. Co-accused could not be traced.
(vi) PW-6 Ct. Rahul deposed that on 14.03.2022, he collected two pulandas from MHC(M) vide RC no. 35/21/22 and deposited the same at FSL, Rohini.
(vii) PW-7 HC Jagsoran deposed that on 17.01.2022, he alongwith Ct. Karnal and Ct. Rajneesh were on patrolling at Road No. 56, Outside Anand Vihar ISBT. At about 8.20 p.m., one secret informer met him and disclosed that one person having knife and involved in several cases of "Jahar Khurani"
was standing at Meerut Point. He immediately formed a raiding party comprising all of the above officials and reached Meerut Point near ISBT Anand Vihar and accused was apprehended at instance of secret informer. His name was revealed as Pramod.
SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 5 of 19 On casual search of accused, one knife was recovered. One packet of biscuit make Parle-G alongwith one small plastic bottle containing poisonous material was also recovered. He got registered a case FIR No. 109/2022, u/s 25 Arms Act. He sealed and seized the above-mentioned case property and prepared all other relevant documents in aforesaid case FIR no. 109/2022. Further investigation of the said case was conducted by HC Sanjeev Kumar. Case property was deposited in the Malkhana. He stated that during investigation, it was revealed that above mentioned biscuit packet and poisonous substance were also used in the present matter. He has proved copy of register no. 19, as Ex.PW7/A and copy of RC no. 35/21/22 as Ex.PW7/B. He has identified the biscuit packet as Ex.P-1 and one small plastic bottle containing stupefying material as Ex.P-2.
(viii) PW-8 Mukesh Kumar, Ahlmad from the Court of Ms. Chhaya Tyagi, Ld. MM, East, has brought file of case FIR no.
109/2022, PS PIA. Photocopy of the rukka of case FIR No. 109/22 is Ex.PW8/A, arrest memo of accused in that case is Ex.PW4/B and his personal search memo as Ex.PW4/A. Seizure memo of knife as Ex.PW8/B and sketch thereof is Ex.PW8/C. Biscuit packet was seized vide memo Ex.PW8/D and plastic bottle vide memo Ex.PW8/E.
(ix) PW-9 Dr. Subhash Chandra, SSO (Chemistry), FSL has deposed that he had examined two parcels, one parcel containing brown colour cream biscuits described on the wrapper as 'Parle Fab Bourbon' and another parcel having orange colour liquid suspension. He examined the same and both i.e. biscuit and SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 6 of 19 liquid were found containing 'Lorazepam', which is stupefying/sedentary substance. He prepared detailed report in this regard as Ex.PW9/A.
(x) PW-10 SI Sunil is 1st IO of the present case. He deposed that on 29.12.2021, on receipt of DD no. 65A Ex.PW10/A, he reached in front of ISBT, Anand Vihar, and tried to find out the exact spot. Thereafter, he made a call on number of complainant i.e. 7380786861. Name of the complainant was revealed as Neeraj Mishra, who narrated the incident to him on telephone and said that he has already returned to his native place i.e. Lucknow. So he kept DD no. 65A pending and returned to PS. On 30.12.2021, at about 10.00 a.m., he prepared rukka Ex.PW10/B on DD no. 65-A, handed it over to Duty Officer ASI Gaj Raj Singh, who registered FIR Ex.PW2/B. After registration of FIR, he made a call to the complainant again and he assured to come to Delhi to join the proceedings. Further investigation was marked to SI Amit Chaudhary. In the meantime, accused Pramod Kumar was arrested on 18.01.2022 in case FIR No. 109/2022 u/s 25 Arms Act, PS PIA, wherein he confessed his involvement in the present case. IO Amit Chaudhary arrested accused in this case vide memo Ex.PW3/A. Investigation was again marked to him. He contacted complainant and complainant came to PS on 04.02.2022. He recorded statement of complainant u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He prepared site plan Ex.PW10/C at the instance of complainant. He also obtained date for judicial TIP of the accused. On 07.02.2022, accused refused to participate in judicial TIP proceedings, copy of same is Ex.PW10/D. On SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 7 of 19 15.02.2022, when IO came to the Karkardooma Court for extension of J/C of accused Pramod @ Rinku, complainant Neeraj Mishra also met him and pointed out towards accused Pramod, who disclosed that he was the same person, who committed the above said offence with him. He recorded his statement u/s 161 Cr.P.C. He sent the packet of biscuit and one small glass bottle (shishi) to FSL. He prepared chargesheet and filed the same before Court. Later on, after receiving the FSL result, the same was filed through supplementary charge-sheet. He has proved the FSL result as Ex.PW9/A. He has identified the accused before the Court.
6. Statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recoded. He has denied the case of prosecution in entirety. He has stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case at the instance of IO and complainant to solve this case. No other case is pending against him. He is a villager and permanent resident of Etah, U.P. and working as a labourer for the last 16 years. He is having 4 minor daughters and 1 minor son.
7. Accused has examined DW-1 Kuldeep in his defence. He deposed that he is resident of House No. S/146/208-A, Village Mohd. Pur, Adarsh Colony, R.K.Puram, New Delhi and accused Parmod Kumar is uncle (chacha) of his wife Ms. Ambey. Accused is permanent resident of a village in District Aligarh, UP and he is working there as a casual labourer in a lock manufacturing company. He further deposed that on 16.01.2022, accused Parmod Kumar had come to his house for some job and SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 8 of 19 next day i.e. 17.01.2022 at about 1.00 noon, accused had left for his house in Aligarh. He further testified that on 18.01.2022, he received a telephonic message from PS PIA that a case had been registered against accused and thereafter, this witness visited PS PIA and came to know that a case under Section 25 Arms Act had been registered against the accused. This witness informed family members of accused regarding registration of a case against accused. He stated that accused Parmod is innocent. Prior to 16.01.2022, accused Parmod had come to his house 4/5 times for searching a job. He further deposed that prior to registration of present case, no other case was registered against the accused in Delhi or UP. He stated that accused has been falsely implicated in case FIR No. 561/2022, PS PIA.
8. Ld. Addl PP has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt as PW-1 Neeraj Mishra, who is complainant, has clearly deposed that it was accused Parmod Kumar, who caught hold of him along with one another associate of accused (not arrested) and accused had put a handkerchief on the face of complainant and thereafter he became unconscious. It is further submitted that when the complainant regained consciousness after half an hour, he found his belongings missing. It is further submitted that accused was later on arrested in another case FIR No. 109/2022 Under Section 25 Arms Act, PS PIA and one knife along with packets of biscuits laced with some poisonous substance and another small plastic bottle containing stupefying substance were recovered. It is further submitted that exhibits seized from accused were sent to SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 9 of 19 FSL and biscuits and bottle containing liquid were found to contain stupefying substance, which shows that accused was part of a gang of 'Jahar Khurani'. It is submitted that on the basis of evidence on record, the prosecution has been successful in proving its case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accused may be convicted.
9. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for accused has submitted that accused was arrested in case FIR No. 109/22 and accused had refused for TIP, as complainant had seen him in the Court. It is further submitted that on 04.02.2022, complainant said that he could identify the accused and photos of accused were taken. It is further submitted that accused is permanent resident of Aligarh and he never lived in Delhi. It is further submitted that case properties have been planted on the accused. It is further submitted that no MLC of injured/complainant was prepared to show that he was made to consume any stupefying substance, hence, no conviction can be recorded under Section 328 IPC. It is further submitted that articles allegedly stolen from the complainant have not been recovered, thus allegation under Section 379 IPC also does not stand proved. It is further submitted that the incident allegedly took place on 25.12.2021, for the first time, he made a call to Police at no. 112 on 29.12.2021, he came to Delhi on 04.02.2022, almost after more than one month, which shows that this is a false case made against the accused. It is further submitted that prosecution has not been able to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 10 of 19 doubt, thus accused may be acquitted. It is prayed that accused persons may be acquitted.
10. I have considered the submissions made by Ld. Additional P.P. for the State and the Ld. Defence Counsel as also the judgments relied upon by Ld. defence counsel and perused the material available on record.
11. In the present case, the accused has been charged for offence under Section 328/379/34 IPC on the allegation that on 25.12.2021 at about 7.00 p.m., when the complainant Sh.Neeraj Mishra had come to Anand Vihar, ISBT to board bus for Lucknow, accused along with his associate (not arrested) met him, accused caught hold of complainant from behind and put a handkerchief on his nose, complainant became unconscious for about half an hour. When the complainant regained consciousness, he noticed that his mobile phone, PAN Card, ATM Card, money and wrist watch were missing.
12. Section 328 IPC is reproduced as under :
328. Causing hurt by means of poison, etc., with intent to commit an offence.-- Whoever administers to or causes to be taken by any person any poison or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing which intent to cause hurt to such person, or with intent to commit or to facilitate the commission of an offence or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause hurt, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.
SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 11 of 19
13. A perusal of abovesaid Section would show that the following ingredients must be satisfied to constitute an offence under section 328 IPC as under:
(i) Some person or persons should administer or cause to be taken by any person any poison or stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, or other thing; and
(ii) The intention of the person or persons mentioned in (i) should be to cause hurt to the person concerned, or should be within knowledge on the part of the person or persons that the result of his act or their act was likely to cause hurt to the concerned persons.
14. The abovesaid ingredients should exist conjunctively, then and then alone would the offence be complete and the person or persons, as the case may be, would be guilty of the offence contained in Section 328 IPC.
15. Now the evidence led by the prosecution has to be seen, as to whether prosecution has proved this offence against the accused or not. PW-1 Neeraj Mishra (complainant) has supported the case of prosecution by stating that on 25.12.2021, at about 7.00 p.m., when he was present at ISBT, Anand Vihar for boarding bus to Lucknow, accused came to him alongwith one another associate and he was caught by accused and accused put a handkerchief on his nose and he became unconscious. When he regained consciousness after about half an hour, he found his mobile phone, PAN Card, money and other articles missing.
16. But surprisingly, complainant Neeraj Mishra made a call to the police and that too, at number 112 only on 29.12.2021 i.e. after four days of the incident (25.12.2021). Said call has been recorded as DD no. 65-A Ex.PW10/A, which records that caller SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 12 of 19 has informed that on 25th he had booked a bus and someone made him consume some intoxicating/stupefying substance and took away his all documents and transferred money. Though, it is deposed by PW-1 that immediately, on regaining consciousness, he went to PS Patparganj and narrated the entire incident to the police, but the police did not record his FIR and advised him to register online complaint. If the version of the complainant is believed, nothing has come on record as to what prevented the complainant from lodging complaint online on the same day or calling police at number 100 or 112 immediately on regaining consciousness. Thus, date of incident is 25.12.2021 but FIR was only registered on 30.12.2021 i.e. after five days of incident. As regards delay in lodging of FIR, Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Satpal Singh vs. State of Haryana", (2010) 8 SCC 714 has observed as under:
"15. This Court has consistently highlighted the reasons, objects and means of prompt lodging of FIR. Delay in lodging FIR more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultation, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity. Thus, FIR is to be filed more promptly and if there is any delay, the prosecution must furnish a satisfactory explanation for the same of the reason that in case the substratum of the evidence given by the SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 13 of 19 complainant/informant is found to be unreliable, the prosecution case has to be rejected in its entirety.
17. PW-1 Sh. Neeraj Mishra (victim) has deposed that on 29.12.2021, he had made a call at no. 112 on the advice of his relative and he came to Delhi on 04.02.2022 and gave statement to the police. PW-10 SI Sunil (IO) has deposed that DD no. 65-A was registered and received by him on 29.12.2021 regarding incident of giving intoxicant to some person on 25.12.2021. He had made a call to the complainant Neeraj Mishra, who disclosed him about the incident on telephone and stated that he had come to his native place i.e. Lucknow. Thereafter, on 30.12.2021, IO prepared rukka on the basis of this DD 65-A and present case FIR was registered on 30.12.2021.
18. From this, it is clear that there was inaction on the part of PW-1 Neeraj Mishra in promptly reporting the matter to the police. The delay in promptly reporting the matter to the police, smacks of some foul play in the present case. Therefore, I am of the opinion that delay in reporting the matter to the police acquires significance in the present case.
19. Another flaw in the case of prosecution is that complainant came to Delhi only on 04.02.2022 and gave statement to the police in the police station. There is nothing on record to suggest that complainant had visited the police station on 25.12.2021.
20. Accused was arrested on 17.01.2022 in another case FIR No. 109/2022, u/s 25 Arms Act, PS PIA and one knife alongwith SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 14 of 19 one packet of biscuit and a small plastic bottle allegedly containing poisonous substance was recovered from him in which, he made disclosure statement about commission of crime in the present case. Thereafter, accused was arrested in this case. The TIP of accused was fixed for 07.02.2022 and the accused had refused to participate in the same. Again on 15.02.2022, when accused was produced at Karkardooma Courts for extension of his judicial remand, complainant Neeraj Mishra met IO SI Sunil in the Court and pointed out towards accused Parmod stating that he was the same person, who had committed crime with him. There is no explanation submitted by Prosecution or PW-1, as to why he remained in Delhi till 15.02.2022, when for the first time after commission of offence he has come to Delhi on 04.02.2022 and his statement was recorded on the same day. Even TIP was fixed for 07.02.2022. There is no reasonable explanation for presence of complainant (PW1) on 15.02.2022 in Karkardooma Courts. Hence, these facts create doubt about genuineness of case of prosecution.
21. In case titled "Joseph Kurian vs. State of Kerala" (1994) 6 SCC 535, the Hon'ble Apex Court defined this section and relevant observation is as under:
10. In order to prove offence under Section 328 the prosecution is required to prove that the substance in question was a poison, or any stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug, etc., that the accused administered the substance to the complainant or caused the complainant to take such substance, that he did so with intent to cause hurt or knowing it to be likely that he would thereby cause hurt, or with the intention to commit or facilitate the commission of an offence. It is, therefore, essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused was directly SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 15 of 19 responsible for administering poison etc. or causing it to be taken by any person, through another. In other words, the accused may accomplish the act by himself or by means of another. In either situation direct, reliable and cogent evidence is necessary.
22. Further, in case titled "Mahinder Kumar & Anr", 2017 SCC OnLine Del 8327, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi also dealt with this section and observed as under:
"17. Upon scrutiny of the statement of the victim, this court is of the opinion that the prosecution must have some corroborating evidence to substantiate the allegation of the injured witness, which is lacking in the present case. More so, this court is astonished to observe that the prosecution has not seized anything nor sent to the laboratory for expert opinion to know as to whether the alleged liquid or substance was actually poisonous, stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug."
23. Considering the above, I am of the opinion that in a case under Section 328 IPC, mere oral assertions are not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of the offence. To hold an accused guilty for the offence, the oral assertions ought to be corroborated by other circumstances and medical evidence.
24. In another judgment titled "Tripat Chaudhary vs. Arundhari Sapru Mehra & Anr, AIRONLINE 2018 DEL 1812, a similar situation arose before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and relevant observation therein is as under:
12. There is no medical evidence brought on record to show any substance in the nature of poison or stupefying, intoxicating or unwholesome drug having been administered to the complainant. Her mere oral word cannot suffice. She has referred to she having been made to use medicines like placidox (diazepam) by the first accused at the instance of the fourth accused. There is no prescription produced in this regard. There is nothing indicated as to the medical condition in which such SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 16 of 19 medicinal prescription may have been recommended, assuming that there was some such recommendation. In these circumstances, there is no reliable or cogent evidence brought to the court to support the complaint about such offence.
25. In another case FIR No. 109/2022, accused was arrested on 17.01.2022 and one biscuit make Parle G along with one small plastic bottle were seized and said bottle was allegedly containing poisonous substance. Both these articles were sent to FSL and PW-2 Dr. Subhash Chandra examined the same in FSL and opined that both sugar coated biscuits and plastic bottle were found containing 'Lorazepam', which is a stupefying/sedentary substance. However, in present case, complainant-PW1 was not offered or made to eat 'biscuits' laced with Lorazepam modus operandi as alleged is different in both the cases. It is case of complainant Neeraj Mishra that he took treatment in Civil Hospital at Lucknow for two days, as he had sustained injuries on his tongue, which was caused in unconscious state. However, no medical document to this effect has been placed on record to come to the conclusion whether PW-1 had actually taken any treatment, if any treatment was taken by him, to provide justification for delay in lodging FIR. As per judgment titled "Tripat Chaudhary vs. Arundhari Sapru Mehra & Anr (supra), proof of medical evidence is must for proving case under Section 328 IPC, which is not the case here. There is no linking evidence to confirm whether any stupefying substance was administered to PW-1. In the absence of same, seizure of plastic bottle and biscuits in another case and their examination in the FSL, is not of any relevance in the present case.
SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 17 of 19
26. Though it is not in dispute that Lorazepam is stupefying substance and same was detected on the biscuit allegedly recovered from the accused in another case FIR No. 109/2022, but no clothes containing any stupefying substance and used by the accused in the present case, has been recovered. Even, there is nothing on record to suggest as to what was the percentage or quantity of Lorazepam and for what duration it could stupefy a person. Even there is no medical of the victim on record showing that any stupefying substance was detected in his blood. In the absence of any such evidence, I am of the opinion that prosecution has not been able to prove its charge under Section 328 IPC against accused.
27. It is also case of the prosecution that after administration of stupefying drug to PW-1, his belongings were stolen and accused had withdrawn money from his ATM, as he had disclosed its PIN number to accused while he was in unconscious state. First of all, it does not appeal to the reason that a victim would disclose PIN number of his ATM to any person, even being in semi unconscious state. Also, there is no investigation as to from which ATM, what amount of money and by whom the money was withdrawn. No bank statement of the complainant/victim showing withdrawal of Rs.3500/- from his account on the day of occurrence as deposed by him has been placed or proved on record. Even otherwise, no recovery of alleged stolen articles has been effected either in this case or in connected case. Therefore, it also does not stand proved on record that anything was stolen from PW-1. Thus, charge under Section 379 IPC does SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 18 of 19 not stand proved on record. Accordingly, accused Pramod Kumar is acquitted of the charges under Section 379/328/34 IPC.
28. Bail bond already furnished by accused is extended for a period of six months under Section 481 of BNSS (Old Section 437-A Cr.P.C).
File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signedSHAIL by SHAIL JAIN Date: JAIN 2025.04.24 14:55:00 +0530 Announced in the open Court (Shail Jain) rd today on 23 April, 2025 Principal District & Sessions Judge East, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi SC No.429/2022; FIR No.561/2021 State Vs. Parmod Kumar; PS : PIA Page 19 of 19