Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. On the said complaint of the complainant, the FIR was registered vide FIR No. 0042/2019 dated 23.09.2019 in PS Anand Vihar Railway Station u/s 328 IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against accused Shabbhu Razak u/s 328 IPC and after filing of charge sheet, cognizance of offence was taken against the accused.

CHARGE

3. Charge for the offence punishable u/s 328 IPC was framed against accused Shabbhu Razak by Ld. Predecessor on 06.09.2021. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

12 noon which creates doubt on the case of the prosecution.

44. In Sunil (Supra), Hon'ble Delhi High Court upheld the order of discharge of accused u/s 328 IPC passed by the Ld. Trial Court and agreed with the finding therein that it is essential to prove the charge u/s 328 IPC that forensic examination of the stomach wash in order to determine that the substance that administered was poison and admittedly no stomach wash was taken.

Similarly in this case also, no gastric lavage/stomach wash was admittedly taken or proved by the prosecution.

2024.10.28 16:47:52 +0530 footage showing the accused and victim together or the accused giving tea to the victim by mixing the said sedative has been brought on record and there is no independent public witness examined. The prosecution failed to lay these foundational facts and thus, the defence of the accused is not material as the present case is also based on circumstantial evidence for which entire chain of events has to be conclusively established to bring home the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and prosecution has only laid the evidence that the accused had offered tea to the PW5 and he became unconscious and the police officials caught the accused and recovered the said tablets, but as discussed in the aforesaid paras there are several missing links in the case of prosecution to prove that it was only the accused, who had given the sedative laced tea to the victim/PW5 and because of the same he became unconscious. Further, none of the witnesses has deposed that the said sedative was given to PW5 to commit the offence, which is one of the ingredients of Section 328 IPC.

CONCLUSION

55. In the totality of the circumstances brought on record by way of evidence, it is observed that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused Shabbhu Razak @ Shambhu Razak qua offence punishable u/s 328 IPC, thus, a benefit of doubt is given to the accused on the basis of above-noted principles and facts established on record.

56. Consequently, the accused Shabbhu Razak @ Shambhu Razak is acquitted of the offence u/s 328 IPC.