Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Ld. Counsel for the accused further stated that the prosecution utterly failed to come out with any evidence to support the section 328 IPC. There is no evidence with regard to the medical examination of PW-5 driver Dharam Singh and PW-11 cleaner Veeru in support of administered poison or stupefying or intoxicated drugs by the accused persons. There is also no recovery of the remnants of omlette or any other intoxicating material from the spot nor any intoxicating substance was recovered from the possession of accused Sudama. PW-11 Veeru admitted that he could not identify the accused Sudama who has taken lift in the truck on the day of incident. The very fact does not support the version of the prosecution regarding the presence of the accused in the truck. Under these circumstances, the accused Sudama is also liable to be acquitted.

In view of the submissions, the deposition of the prosecution witnesses, material placed on record and the facts and circumstances of the case, the charge was framed against the accused Sudama and Gama for the offence u/s 328 IPC read with section 120 B IPC and 379 IPC read with 120 B IPC. The charge u/s 411 IPC was framed against the accused Nitish Kumar and Sudama.

PW-2 Praveen Kumar did not support the case of the prosecution and resiled from this statement by stating that "...Today I cannot identify those boys who were living in the said room. I do not know the residential addresses of the native places of those boys. About 6-7 months ago, police had reached the first floor and arrested one or two boys out of four boys. I cannot tell how many boys out of four had been arrested. I cannot identify the raxine rolls if shown to me." He also confronted from his statement Ex.PW2/A. Even in the cross examination of the Ld. APP for state it is denied that he is deposing falsely as he has been won over by accused Nitish.

In case titled as E.K. Chandrasenan Vs State of Kerala AIR 1995 SC 1066, (1995) 2 SCC 99, 1995 SCC (Cri) 329, it was observed that the accused liquor to be adulterated with methyl alcohol, a poisonous substance and as a result of consumption of such poisonous liquor 70 persons died, 24 persons lost eye sight permanently and others received minor injuries. Apart from committing the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt punishable u/s 326 IPC, they are guilty of offence punishable under section 328 IPC.

In the present case, the articles of crime i.e. case property has been duly proved by its owner against its title as well as the receipts were also proved by the buyer PW-3 Faimmuddin. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I came to the definite conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the case against the accused Nitish and Sudama for the offence u/s 411/34 IPC as the testimony of prosecution witnesses are cogent, firm, believable, trustworthy and corroborated. The testimony of all the prosecution witnesses inspire confidence to prove the guilt of the accused Nitish and Sudama for the offence u/s 411 IPC. However, the evidence to prove the guilt of the accused persons for the offence u/s 328/379/120B IPC is insufficient, there is no direct corroboration and ocular evidence with respect to proving the ingredients of section 328/120B IPC. Therefore, the accused Sudama S/o Inderjeet and Nitish Kumar S/o Niranjan Rao are hereby convicted for the offence u/s 411 IPC.