JUDGMENT T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral):- By way of the present appeal, the State of Haryana had challenged the acquittal of the accused-respondent of the charges under Sections 328/379 IPC, as recorded by learned Sessions Judge, Sonepat vide judgment dated 15.11.1997. 2. According to the prosecution, on 30.7.1996, the respondent and Kamlesh Kumar were travelling in Unchahar Express train from Ambala to Delhi. Both of them were eating biscuits. Suddenly, there was a raula as Kamlesh Kumar became unconscious, whereas the respondent was seen moving at a fast speed. The latter was caught hold of by Constable Misri Lal and Constable Bahadur Singh, who were on patrolling duty in the said train and they had boarded the compartment at Samalkha. The respondent, alongwith his luggage, was handed over to SI Sube Singh, when the train reached Sonepat. The search of the respondent conducted by SI Sube Singh yielded a purse containing Rs.5,300/-. On the basis of statement Ex.PC made by Constable Misri Lal, FIR No.100 dated 30.7.1996 was registered at Police Station GRP, Sonepat under Sections 328/379 IPC. During investigation of the case, the respondent was interrogated and he disclosed that he had kept concealed poisonous tablets at Karnal platform and he could get the same recovered. His disclosure statement was recorded and in pursuance of the same, he led the police party to the designated place where the recovery was affected. 3. After going through the evidence brought on the record by the prosecution and statement of the respondent-accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had miserably failed to bring home the guilt to the respondent. The prosecution case was held to be doubtful and accordingly, benefit of doubt was extended to the respondent by acquitting him of the charges against him. 4. It may not be out of place to mention here that after having been arrested on 30.7.1996, the respondent remained in custody throughout the trial of the case. It was only on 15.11.1997, when he was acquitted of the charges by the trial Court that he was released from the custody. As such, he had already undergone an actual period of more than 1 year and 3½ months in jail as an under trial. 5. I have perused the impugned judgment and examined the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case. 6. As such, he had already undergone an actual period of more than 1 year and 3½ months in jail as an under trial. 5. I have perused the impugned judgment and examined the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case. 6. Except for the statement of PW-4 Kamlesh Kumar, the prosecution did not associate any person to establish that it was the respondent, who had offered biscuits laced with some sort of poison to said Kamlesh Kumar. Neither PW-3 Constable Misri Lal, nor Constable Bahadur Singh were the eye witnesses of the actual occurrence. According to them, they had apprehended not only the respondent but Kamlesh Kumar, the victim also. 7. The trial Court adversely commented upon the conduct of Kamlesh Kumar in accepting the biscuits from an unknown person and then taking the same despite the fact that he was carrying substantial money with him. However, it has come in evidence that both the respondent and Kamlesh Kumar, the victim, used to work at a brick kiln and their relations were strained, as they had some dispute over money. This fact assumes importance in view of the denial by Kamlesh Kumar regarding having known the respondent. 8. According to the prosecution, both the respondent and the victim were taking biscuits while travelling in the train. However, not even a single biscuit was recovered from that place which could have been sent to the Chemical Examiner for finding out as to whether it contained any poison or not. Some recovery of poisonous tablets at the instance of the respondent from the platform of Karnal Railway Station is no ground to hold that he was in possession of the same. At the most, it could be said that he had knowledge of the same. In view of the aforementioned facts, no case is made out for any interference in the impugned judgment of acquittal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. -------------