Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28.   Before   coming   to   the   conclusion   on   the   basis   of FIR No. 239/2010, P.S Mukherjee Nagar    State Vs. Himanshu @ Happy Page No.  29 of  32 deposition of prosecution witnesses, I deem it appropriate to go through the relevant provisions i.e Section 328 IPC for which the accused has been charge sheeted.  Section 328 IPC reads 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 with 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"

29. From   the   testimonies   of   witness   and   the   arguments addressed by Ld. Addl. PP for the State, it is established on record   that   the   accused   has   administered   the   stupefying substance/   sedative   poisoning   which   is   punishable   under Section 328 IPC and during the same incident Rs. 13,000/­ as well   as   mobile   of   the   victim   has   been   recovered   from   the possession   of   the   accused   and   while   committing   the   said offence he had been seen by the eye witnesses PW 2and PW 3 and the recovery was also effected in their presence from the accused.     Therefore,   the   accused   has   also   committed   the offence   punishable   under   Section   379   and   in   alternatively under Section 411 IPC.

31.    In view of my findings to the arguments of Ld. counsel for the parties as well as in view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish and prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the accused has committed the offence under Section 328 IPC by administering   poisonous/   stupefying   substance.     It   is   also establish   by   the   prosecution   on   record   that   recoveries   has FIR No. 239/2010, P.S Mukherjee Nagar    State Vs. Himanshu @ Happy Page No.  31 of  32 been effected from the accused of the items belonging to the complainant   and   he   has   committed   the   offence   punishable under Section 411 IPC.  The prosecution has been also able to establish on record that the accused was declared absconder after   his   release   on   bail   by   the   Court   and   process   under Section 82 Cr.P.C has been issued and executed against the accused.     Therefore   he   has   also   committed   the   offence punishable under Section 174 A IPC.

32.   Accordingly in view of the above discussion, I hold the accused   guilty   for   the  offence  punishable  under   Section  328 IPC and 411 IPC as well under Section 174 A IPC.  Let he be heard on the quantum of sentence.



Announced in the open court
on December 14, 2017                             (Mukesh Kumar)
                                Addl. Sessions Judge­04 (North­West)
                                               Rohini Courts, Delhi.




FIR No. 239/2010, P.S Mukherjee Nagar    State Vs. Himanshu @ Happy       Page No.  32 of  32