Case Facts:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Appeal (DB) No.555 of 2005 [Against the judgment of conviction dated 25th July 2005 and order of sentence dated 28th July 2005 passed by Sri Harendra Nath Tiwary, learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 346 of 2003 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 199 of 2002] =========================================================== Roop Dhari Das, son of Late Sukan Das resident of village- Khabra, P.S.- Sadar Dist- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Appellant/s Versus State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pramod Ranjan, Amicus Curiae For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashwani Kumar Sinha, Adv. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHYAM KISHORE SHARMA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL) Date: 09-08-2012 The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment of conviction dated 25th July 2005 and order of sentence dated 28th July 2005 passed by the learned 9th Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarpur in Sessions Trial No. 346 of 2003 arising out of Sadar P.S. Case No. 199 of 2002 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and a fine of Rs.2000/-and in default of payment of fine rigorous imprisonment for six months under [STATUTE] and rigorous imprisonment for life and a fine of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.555 of 2005 dt.09-08-2012 2 Rs.2000/- under [STATUTE] and in default of payment of fine further to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. According to Fard Beyan (Ext. 2) of the informant Tetari Devi (P.W. 6) on 10.10.2002 at 8 a.m. at her Darwaja in village Khabara, the prosecution case, in brief, is that her husband Amichand Das (deceased) transferred his two dhurs of homestead land on 8.10.2002 in favour of Shiv Shanker Ojha (D.W.-1) for a consideration of Rs.20,000/- through registered deed. Roopdhari Das (the appellant) was present at the time of registration of sale deed at Muzaffarpur Registry Office. Her husband (deceased) returned to his house and told her that consideration money of Rs.20,000/- had been given to Roopdhari Das (appellant) for safe custody. Later on, her husband demanded the money but it was not returned by the appellant to the deceased. Geeta Devi (P.W. 4), the elder daughter of the informant told her that on 9.10.2002 at about 4.30 p.m. the appellant was seen with her husband (deceased) in the shop of illicit liquor and the appellant was serving the illicit liquor to the deceased. At 8 A.M. the deceased came to his house in drunken condition, wept and told her that Roopdhari Das (appellant) did not Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.555 of 2005 dt.09-08-2012 3 return Rs.20,000/-, sale proceed even after demand and served the liquor mixed with the poisonous substance, as a result of which his condition was deteriorating. He vomited twice and again he vomited blood. Thereafter, he became senseless and died. The informant had firm belief that her husband died due to poisonous liquor served by Roopdhari Das (appellant). 3. On the basis of fard beyan Sadar P.S. Case No. 199 of 2002 dated 10.10.2002 was registered under [STATUTE] . After investigation charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] . Cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under [STATUTE] to which he denied and claimed to be tried. 4. The defence of the appellant is that he did not take money from the deceased Amichand Das nor served poisonous liquor and he claimed to be innocence as such the trial proceeded. After the trial the appellant has been found guilty and sentenced by the learned trial court as aforesaid. 5. This Court is now required to reappraise the evidence as to whether the prosecution has been Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.555 of 2005 dt.09-08-2012 4 able to substantiate its charge against the appellant beyond shadow of all reasonable doubts or not ? 6. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses to prove its charge. They are P.W. 1 Nagendra Rai, P.W. 2 Dr. Mumtaz Ahmad, P. W. 3 Ram Chandra Das, P.W. 4 Gita Devi, P.W. 5 Ramdulari @ Ram Pukari Devi, P.W. 6 Tetari Devi, P.W. 7 Shankar Prasad Yadav, P. W. 8 Radha Raman Prasad, and P.W. 9 Md. Ayub, out of them P.W. 1 and 3 are hostile witnesses they have not supported the prosecution case as such their evidence is not helpful to the prosecution. 7. P. W. 2 has held the post-mortem on the dead body of Amichand Das aged about 65 years on 10.10.2002 at 12.30 P.M. while he was posted as Associate Professor, FMT Department, SKM College Hospital, Muzaffarpur and found as follows:- The body was average built. Rigor mortis was present in all limbs of the body. No ante-mortem injury was found either externally or internally. Following viscera were preserved in soturotated solution of common salt- 1. Stomach with its contents 2. A portion of liver 3. A portion of spleen 4. One kidney. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.555 of 2005 dt.09-08-2012 5 The opinion of cause of death was kept reserved. The post-mortem report has been marked as Ext. 1. In cross- examination, he has stated that it could not be detected about reason of death. On call on 28.4.2005 this witness has stated that chemical analysis report of viscera of Amichand Das was sent vide P. M. No. 567/2002 dated 10.10.2002. Result of chemical analysis shows that thimat was detected in the dark brown fluid of glass Jar. Thimat is an organo, Phosphosis pesticide which is widely used in agriculture for killing pests and is highly poisonous. In his cross-examination he has stated that thimat has hig

Applicable IPC Section: 328

Statute Text:
Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code. Administering stupefying drug with intent to cause hurt, etc. 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.