Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Subsequently accused Jalil Ahmed was arrested . Supplementary chargesheet was filed SC No. 16/14 State vs Rinku etc (Page 4 of 29 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 251/11 P.S Alipur u/s 328/379/34 IPC against him and vide order dated 09.8.2012, charges for offences u/s 328/379/34 IPC were framed against him also.

23. As stated herein above proceedings against accused Sunder Pal are already stands abated and accused Rinku is absconding. Now, only accused Ajmat Ali @ Raju and Jalil Ahmad are facing trial. Both the accused persons have been charged for offences u/s 328/379/34 IPC. First of all take the offence u/s 328 IPC. If any person is causing hurt or injury to any person by means of poison is punishable u/s 328 IPC. In the present case although there are allegations that complainant Rajender Kumar (PW5) was administered something mixed in the cold drink but what was that substance, remained unknown to this court. In order to prove the offence u/s 328 of IPC , the prosecution was required to prove that the substance in question was a poison or any stupefying intoxicating drug etc,. In such type of cases direct, reliable and cogent evidence is necessary which is missing in the present case.

24. PW2 HC Jitender and PW3 ASI Ram Roop SC No. 16/14 State vs Rinku etc (Page 11 of 29 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 251/11 P.S Alipur u/s 328/379/34 IPC tried to give an impression that complainant Rajender Kumar was administered some poisonous substance by deposing that during the search of accused Sunder pal(expired) from right pocket of his pant two strips of tablets of Larale Pan Ativan 2 mg containing 20 tablets were recovered. All the accused persons claimed that they used to administer these tablets in cold drink to the victim and then they used to do the theft of vehicles. But that is not sufficient to presume that complainant Rajender Kumar was administered something poisonous to hold the accused guilty for the offence u/s 328 IPC. The evidence of identification, as discussed herein below, is suspicious and cannot form basis of conviction of the accused persons. That being so , in the absence of any medical or chemical examination report in this regard, accused persons Jalil Ahmad and Ajmat Ali @ Raju cannot be convicted hence, they stands acquitted for the offence u/s 328/34 IPC.

51. In the light of aforesaid discussion, Court is of the view that prosecution has failed to prove the SC No. 16/14 State vs Rinku etc (Page 28 of 29 ) D.O.D 21.7.2014 FIR no. 251/11 P.S Alipur u/s 328/379/34 IPC case for the offence u/s 328/379/34 IPC IPC. Accordingly, accused Jalil Ahmad and Raju @ Ajmat Ali stands acquitted for offences u/s 328/379/34 IPC Their sureties stands discharged.