Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 669 (PNJ)

Parkash v. State Of Haryana

2010-01-27

SABINA

body2010
Judgment SABINA, J. 1. The appellant was convicted for an offence under Sec.308 of the indian Penal Code ("ipc"- for short) vide judgment dated 12.9.1998 by the additional Sessions Judge, Rohtak. Vide order dated 14.9.1998, the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and a fine of Rs.2,000/-. Hence, the present appeal. 2. Prosecution case, as noticed by the trial Court in para No.2 of its judgment, is reproduced herein below:- "Rajpal complainant was working as halwai i. e. for preparing sweets at the sweets at the sweet shop of Mahender in village Sanghi. The accused Parkash also had been running a sweet shop there. Mahenders shop started doing good business, whereas, the shop of the accused slowly lost its business. The accused thought that his business was ruined on account of complainant. On 26.6.1996, at about 9.30 p. m. the complainant along with Bhambhal PW had gone to the well to take bath after taking meals. The well was near the shop of the accused, who reached there and took complainant to his shop. Bhambhal also accompanied them. Accused Parkash made the complainant to drink poison lying in the glass tumbler saying that it was good quality liquor. The complainant had even refused, but he was persuaded to consume it by persistent requests of the accused. On consuming it, the complainant felt burning sensation in his chest and throat. The complainant protested to the accused saying that he had administered him poison. Bhambhal took the complainant to the shop of Mahender. Complainant became unconscious. On 27.5.1996, the complainants brother Prem started taking the complainant to PGIMS Rohtak, but the accused stopped them and administered an injection to the complainant and also transfused a bottle of glucose as the accused also practices in medicines. However, the complainant did not feel any relief and his vision also started blurring. Thereupon Prem and Mahender got the complainant admitted in PGIMS rohtak on the evening of 27.6.1996. On medical examination of the complainant as per MLR Ex. PL, it was a case of suspected poisoning. Blood sample of the complainant was taken and its sealed parcel with sample seal and copy of MLR and with ruqqa Ex. Thereupon Prem and Mahender got the complainant admitted in PGIMS rohtak on the evening of 27.6.1996. On medical examination of the complainant as per MLR Ex. PL, it was a case of suspected poisoning. Blood sample of the complainant was taken and its sealed parcel with sample seal and copy of MLR and with ruqqa Ex. PD was sent to the police post of PGIMS Rohtak, from where telephonic message was sent to Police Station Saddar Rohtak and thereupon HC Sukhbir Singh collected ruqqa and MLR etc. from the aforesaid police post and then went to the hospital and made application Ex. PE on which doctor gave opinion Ex. PE/1 that patient rajpal was fit to give statement. Thereupon statement Ex. PA of Rajpal was recorded regarding the occurrence. He added that he was administered poison by the accused so as to kill him. On this statement, present FIR Ex. PA/2 was registered. Rough site plan Ex. PF was prepared. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Blood sample with sample seal etc. was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG. Scaled site plan Ex. PJ was got prepared. The accused was arrested on 8.7.1996. Blood sample was sent to FSL Madhuban. As report Ex. PC received from there, organophosphorus pesticide and traces of ethyl alcohol were detected in the blood sample. On completion of investigation, Saddar Rohtak police presented this challan for trial of accused Parkash under Sections 307/328 IPC". 3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that this petition deserves to be dismissed. In the present case, complainant rajpal was administered poison by the appellant in liquor. The complainant was got medically treated. The said statement of the complainant to the effect that he had been administered poison by the appellant is corroborated by the medical evidence. PW-8 Dr. Amarjit Singh Rathi has proved the medico legal report of the complainant to the effect that the complainant had been admitted as a suspected case of poisoning with alcohol on 26.6.1996. Blood sample was sent for chemical examination. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner, ex. PC, organophosphorus pesticide and traces of ethyl alcohol were detected in the blood sample of the complainant. It is further apparent from the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PC that a sealed parcel had been received by the laboratory which had been later on chemically examined. As per the report of the Chemical Examiner, ex. PC, organophosphorus pesticide and traces of ethyl alcohol were detected in the blood sample of the complainant. It is further apparent from the report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PC that a sealed parcel had been received by the laboratory which had been later on chemically examined. There is nothing on record to suggest as to why the complainant would have falsely involved the appellant in this case. The appellant had failed to establish the plea taken by him when he was examined under Sec.313 Cr. P. C. that in fact, the complainant had developed illicit relations with the wife of mahender. The appellant had failed to examine any witness in support of this plea. Since the prosecution had been successful in proving its case, learned trial Court had rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant under Sec.328 ipc. No ground for interference is made out. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.