Short Note : 1. The appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under section 328 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code for making an attempt to administer poison with the intention to cause harm to the complainant Kheduram and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Held: According to the story of the prosecution, it is said that an attempt to administer poison to the complainant was made by the appellant while serving the item of Kadhi (a liquid preparation of gram floor). The manner in which the prosecution suggests the attempt having been made by the appellant to administer poison to the complainant is highly improbable and cannot be believed. It was alleged that when so many persons were silting in a line and separate items of food were being served and distributed by so many persons, the present appellant had kept some poisonous article in his left hand and while serving Kadhi (the liquid preparation from Gram floor), on the plate of the complainant, he tried to mix the same by taking out the liquid from the bowl and putting the same in his left hand, poured it over the rice in the plate of the complainants, and then which was already served by some other person. Thus the suggestion was that the poisonous article was mixed in such an abnormal manner in the presence of all other persons, by adopting the abnormal method of serving the liquid eatable by passing it through the left hand. According to the normal manner the serving of the said item of Kadhi was to pour it on the plates directly from the bowls. 2. Apart from the fact that the story of the prosecution appears to be highly improbable, there is one more circumstance which entitles the appellant to the benefit of doubt. It is not disputed that what was sent to the chemical examiner for test and report was a mixture of rice Kadhi and Dal. It was not dispute that immediately before the appellant has served Kadhi, rice was already served by some other person and similarly Dal (another liquid preparation of pulses) was also served by some other person. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the poisonous article was in the Kadhi itself which was served by the appellant. 3. It was not dispute that immediately before the appellant has served Kadhi, rice was already served by some other person and similarly Dal (another liquid preparation of pulses) was also served by some other person. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the poisonous article was in the Kadhi itself which was served by the appellant. 3. It is true that certain circumstances of ill-will and grudge with the compl1inant have been alleged against the appellant, but in any case, on the basis of the aforesaid improbable story and in the absence of any cogent material to fix the responsibility of rutting the poisonous article on the appellant alone, it is not possible to sustain the conviction. The trial Court was aware of this situation and rightly observed in paragraph 13 of his judgment on the basis of the evidence that the accused appellant could be convicted only when the evidence establishes beyond doubt the fact that the poisonous substance was put by the appellant in the Kadhi served by him and not in any other item of pulse (another liquid) or rice. But while coming to the conclusion about the guilt of the appellant, the trial Court erred in law in ignoring the facts and circumstances which make the story of the prosecution not only highly improbable but also creates doubt about the administration of the poisonous substance in Kadhi alone when the said item was not put to test separately and the mixture of the same with Dal and rice served by others was got tested. Appeal allowed.