In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Revision No. 1164 of 2002 Date of decision: 25.03.2009 Jai Singh ... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana and another ... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Praduman Yadav, DAG, Haryana. A.N. Jindal, J Assailed in this petition is the judgment dated 1.2.2002 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad-hoc), Rohtak, acquitting the accused-respondent No.2 Rohtash (herein referred as 'the respondent') for the offence under Sections 328/307 IPC. The factual matrix of the case is that on 14.3.1999, the complainant Jai Singh reported to the police that on 13.3.1999, on the pretext of discussing some important matters, the respondent took him to his house. After some discussions, the respondent brought two cups of tea. The complainant sipped about half a cup of tea and then he started feeling giddiness and suffocated. The respondent told him that he got mixed some poisonous thing in the tea and would teach him a lesson for starting a separate school. Thereafter, the complainant came to his house and informed Suresh Devi, Surender Singh and Dile that the respondent had administered something poisonous thing to him in order to kill him. They took him to P.G.I.M.S. Rohtak where he was medico-legally examined. On the basis of the aforesaid statement, FIR was registered and investigated. Completion of the investigation was followed by a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. The respondent was charged for the offence under Section 307 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest. The prosecution led evidence and ultimately the trial ended in acquittal. Crl. Revision No. 1164 of 2002 -2- *** Arguments heard. Record perused. The prosecution has mainly relied upon the testimony of the complainant and his wife. Both are contradictory in their statements in material particulars. The medical evidence does not fit in with the ocular version. The witness namely Surender Singh was given up and Kapoor Singh cited by the prosecution has supported the defence version. The brother of the complainant namely Maha Singh and his mother, who were obviously present in the house were not examined in order to support the prosecution version. Perusal of the record shows that the relations between the complainant as well as the respondent were not cordial. It is improbable that the complainant who had strained relations with the respondent would visit his house to discuss the important matters. If the respondent wanted to discuss any matter, he could do so at the house of the complainant also. Further more, if any insecticide was mixed up in the tea, then its taste must have become unpalatable delivering foul smell and it could not be sipped , but the complainant has deposed that he had taken half of the contents of the cup. These circumstances go to the root of the case and sufficient for the court to disbelieve the prosecution version. Having examined the impugned judgment, the evidence appears to have been appreciated in the right perspective. No illegality much less irregularity has been detected or pointed out warranting interference by this Court. Even otherwise, it is well settled by now that if two views are possible the view favouring the accused must be followed. Consequently, finding no merit in the petition the same is dismissed. March 25, 2009 (A.N. Jindal) deepak Judge