Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 328 penal code in State vs Bagga Singh on 29 August, 2025Matching Fragments
"...On consideration of charge-sheet, statement of the complainant and FSL report, there is sufficient material disclosing prima facie commission of offences punishable under Section 328, 354A, 354, 354D, 506 and 509 IPC. Charges under Section 328, 354A, 354, 354D, 506 and 509 IPC are framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial..."
(Emphasis supplied)
(Emphasis supplied)
14. Notably, it is seen from above, in particular, from a conscientious analysis of the provisions under Section 328 IPC, that in order to attract the said provision, it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the substance, alleged to be administered to a victim was a poison, or any stupefying/intoxicating substance or unwholesome drug, etc., and that the same was administered by an accused to such victim or the accused caused such victim to take it, with an intention to cause hurt or commit or facilitate commission of an offence or with a knowledge that it may be likely to cause hurt. Ergo, under such circumstances, it is essential for the prosecution to prove that the accused was 2, "directly 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 this regard, reference is made to the decision in CBI v. Samson D'Souza, 2019 SCC Online Bom. 1392, wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, while iterating the ingredients of the provision under Section 328 IPC observed as under;
(Emphasis supplied)
15. Markedly, it is quite perspicuous from above that the pivot and fulcrum for attracting culpability under Section 328 IPC is premised on the establishment/proof of the substance being administer to a victim, determined by corroborative evidence, to be poisonous, stupefying, intoxicating, or unwholesome drug. Ergo, it is for this reason that the superior courts have persistently avowed3 that mere oral assertion(s) of victim about the factum of intoxication or use of such substance(s) is/are not sufficient to hold an accused guilty of the offence under Section 328 IPC and that in order to hold an accused guilty for the offence under the said provision, "...the oral assertions ought to be corroborated by other circumstances and evidence..." Here, it is pertinent to make a reference to the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Krishna Kant v. State, 2023 SCC Online Del. 1946, wherein the Hon'ble Court, while carrying out an exhaustive analysis of the provisions under Section 328 IPC as well as various judicial precedents governing the field, noted as under;
2025.08.29 16:36:29 +0530 of the complainant or of any of other articles, allegedly deployed by the accused to intoxicate the complainant, as asserted by PW-2 in her deposition, to determine with certainty, the presence of any poisonous, intoxicating, stupefying, or unwholesome drug either in person of the complainant or any other article. Further, as aforenoted, no such substance is either proclaimed to have been recovered either from or at the behest of the accused, by any of the prosecution witnesses/investigating officer. In fact, during the course of her cross examination, PW-9 specifically admitted that she had not found any sedative substance from the possession of the accused and that, "...no medical report in respect of administration of sedative substance to complainant was produced by the complainant...". Clearly, under such circumstances, except for the aforenoted oral assertion of the complainant, no other corroborative material/evidence has been brought to the attention of this Court, so as to unambiguously bring home the charges/culpability under Section 328 IPC against the accused in the instant case, in view of the decisions in Krishna Kant v. State (Supra.) and CBI v. Samson D'souza (Supra.). Quite evidently, under such circumstances, the provisions of Section 328 IPC, in considered opinion of this Court, cannot be attracted against the accused for the reason that in the absence of accessibility to any forensic/Scientific evidence, it would not be within the domain of this Court to give any finding whether any such substance was, in fact, administered by the accused to the complainant herein. Even otherwise, it is further pertinent to note that PW-2, during the course of her cross-examination by/on the behest of the accused, specifically admitted that in her initial complaint made to the Gurudwara Committee (Ex. PW2/C), she made no reference to the (alleged) use of any intoxicating substance by the accused.