JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is filed by the accused-appellant challenging the judgment dated 5.5.1986 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Churu in Sessions Case No. 10/85, convicting the accused appellant under Section 328 and sentencing her to suffer R.l. for 18 months and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and under Section 379 I.P.C. to 6 months R.l. on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also canvassed before me. 2. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused-appellant and learned Public Prosecutor. I have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence on record. 3. The prosecution story as emerges from the re-appreciation of the record is as under: 4. On 14.12.1984 at about 9.30 in the night an oral report was lodged in Police Station Doongargarh that in the evening of 13th December around 6.00 O clock the accused Gulabi and Ganga Ram put some poisonous substance in the tee and administered the same to the victim and then committed theft of money belonging to the victim. On the basis of this report, the crime was registered under Section 328, 379 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was undertaken. During the course of investigation white powder weighting 8 to 10 grams was recovered from the accused Ganga Ram. The powder was got analysed by Forensic Science Laboratory, Jaipur. It was stated in the report that the power contains a poisonous thing of Naitrazam. On completion of the investigation, the accused has been convicted for offence under Section 328, 379 and 323 of Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses to prove its case which was denied by the accused, who examined one witness in support of her case. The learned Judge on appreciation of this evidence proceeded to convict the accused Gulabi under Section 328 I.P.C.to suffer imprisonment for 18 months. Similar sentence was recorded against Ganga Ram. The present appeal is however filed by Gulabi alone. 5. There is no reason why the evidence as led by the prosecution should not be believed. Even if this entire evidence is accepted as correct, the conviction under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code is not possible. Similar sentence was recorded against Ganga Ram. The present appeal is however filed by Gulabi alone. 5. There is no reason why the evidence as led by the prosecution should not be believed. Even if this entire evidence is accepted as correct, the conviction under Section 328 of the Indian Penal Code is not possible. In order to consist the conviction under section 328 that prohibition it is necessary to prove that the victim was administered a poisonous substance by the accused, the prosecution evidence thus proved that poisonous substance was found in possession of accused Gangaram. It is also proved that the victim vomited and when the prosecution had unfortunately failed to prove that the poisonous substance found in possession of the accused which was administered to the victim and it was because of that administration of powder that the victim vomited has not been chemically analysed. It is therefore, not proved that poisonous substance was administered to the victim. In absence of such connecting evidence even if the other evidence is fully accepted, the conviction is not possible. In so far as the allegations of theft are concerned, notes are recovered from the possession of the accused. Mere recovery of notes which are not identifiable or traceable to a particular owner is again insufficient evidence for conviction under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. 6. In such circumstances, for failure on part of the prosecution to connect the poison and to prove its administration by the accused is as also proved theft, the order of conviction is set aside. The conviction both under section 328 and 379 I.P.C. and set aside. The appellant is already on bail, her bail bonds are cancelled.Appeal allowed. *******