LACHHMAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was found guilty of offences under sections 328 and 379 Indian Penal Code by an order dated 4-1-86 and was convicted for the same. By an order dated 10-1-86 the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs. 500.00 , in default whereof he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for three months. This sentence was passed under section 328 Indian Penal Code while he was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under section 379 Indian Penal Code Both these sentences were made to run concurrently by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge.

(2.) The facts that resulted in the registration of F.I R. and the conviction of the appellant are that on 30th May 1984 one Babu Lal Public Witness 5 and Ram Sanhai Public Witness 6 along with one Maya Devi had gone to the railway Station, Nizamuddin New Delhi as they had to take a train for going to Chitrak in order to reach their village Avadhi. The appellant allegedly met them at the railway station and made them to believe that he too had to catch the same train. He in this manner joined their company. It is further alleged that since there was some time for the arrival of the train, the appellant took all these persons to a nearby park. Public Witness 5 Babu Lal at the time of incident was carrying an his person a brief-case, wrist watch, a transistor radio and some clothes besides Rs. 300.00 in cash while Public Witness 6 Ram Sanhai, uncle of Public Witness 5, was carrying Rs. 300 each and some clothes. After some time the appellant is said to have left the park and after a short-while be returned to the Park with Laddus which he offered to these persons and all of them became unconscious soon after consuming these Laddus.

(3.) The short allegation against the appellant is that he offered some stupefying drug with intent to commit and facilitate the commission of theft and that soon after these people fell unconscious the appellant stripped them of their belongings and cash and then escaped. The further charge against the appellant is the he administered stupefying drug to these persons with the knowledge that it was likely to cause hurt.