Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

S.C. No. 45/10 FIR No. 698/08 Eva Jennifer & Anr. vs. State 2/29

2. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed under Section 328/379/411/34 IPC against accused Eva Jeniffer and Anthony Williams.

3. On 06.06.2009, charge under Section 328/120B/379/34 IPC was framed against both the accused persons. Accused Eva Jeniffer was also charged under Section 411 IPC separately. However, before the evidence could begin, accused Anthony Williams absconded and was declared a Proclaimed Offender on 31.08.2010.

8. I have heard both the sides and have perused the records of the case. Accused has faced trial for the offences u/s 328/379/411 IPC read with section 120-B IPC. Section 328 IPC deals with the offence of causing hurt by means of poison etc. with intent to commit an offence. The section inter-alia prescribes punishment for the person who administers any intoxicating drug or other thing with intent to cause hurt to a person. In order to prove the offence u/s 328 IPC prosecution is obliged to prove that accused administered poison with the intention or knowledge that it is likely to cause hurt.

28. If the deposition of all these witnesses is read together, it is found that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond doubt. Statement of victim has its own sanctity. Nothing has come on record as to why the accused would be falsely implicated by the victim. Accused refused to take part in TIP for no plausible reason. He identified the accused in Court. His stolen articles were recovered from the accused. Sedative tablets were recovered from the accused from her handbag. The articles were identified by the victim in judicial TIP. There is thus no reason to disbelieve these circumstances. Prosecution has been able to prove that accused administered some sedative to the victim and thereafter she caused theft of his belongings. All the ingredients of the offences u/s 328 and 379 IPC are fulfilled. The accused is thus convicted for the offences u/s 328 and 379 IPC.

Ld. Addl. PP, on the other hand, has prayed for maximum sentence.

I have heard both the sides and have perused the records of the case. Section 328 IPC prescribes for a punishment of either description for a term upto ten years and with fine. Section 379 IPC prescribes a punishment of either description for a term upto three years or with fine or with both.

Records show that the convict was arrested on 25.09.2008 and she was released from jail on 15.02.2012 on bail. She has thus already undergone custody of more than 40 months during the course of trial. The convict is in family way and is expected to deliver on 15.08.2014. Although, the offence of the convict does not deserve any lenient view but purely taking into consideration the circumstance that the convict is already in family way and her daughter is only five years of age and that she has already undergone a custody of about 40 months during the course of trial of the present case, the convict is awarded the sentence of the period already undergone by her for the offences under Section 328 and 379 IPC. The convict shall, however, pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- for the offence under Section 328 IPC and in default of payment of fine, she shall suffer simple imprisonment for a period of three months.