The main legal point established is the requirement for corroborating evidence and compliance with legal provisions for admissibility of statements, as well as the need to prove charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Gopal Prasad, J.- Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 328. I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five year and further convicted under Section 465, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. However, both the sentences shall run .concurrently.

3. The prosecution case as alleged in the complaint petition by the complainant Jai Kishore Pandey that while the complainant was cutting grass in his maize field accused Anil Kumar Pandey requested him to follow to his house for some talk. The complainant went to the house of Anil kumar Pandey. It is alleged that accused Anil Kumar Pandey offered Barti to the complainant and after taking said barfi the complainant felt giddiness and he became unconscious. It is alleged that in the meantime accused person took thumb impression of the complainant on some paper, Thereafter the complainant gain consciousness after two-three hours and raise alarm. Thereafter, it is alleged that panchayati was convened. It was demanded to return the paper on which' thumb impression has been taken which was refused by the accused so the complaint petition has been filed.

4. On the complaint the complainant was examined on solemn affirmation under Section 200. Cr.P.C. After taking cognizance inquiry proceeded and the process was issued against the accused and subsequently trial proceeded after appearance and framed charge.

5. During pendency of the trial the complainant died. hence his evidence could not be recorded but five witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. PW I is the brother of the complainant has come to support the prosecution case that the complainant was taken to the house of the accused Ann Kumar Pandey. There he was given sweets by which complainant got unconscious and his thumb impression was taken However, this witness. PW 1 has stated in his cross-examination in para 25 that at the time when he went to the house of Ann Kumar Paridey. his brother was unconscious. He has further stated that he took his brother to the doctor. He has further stated that his brother gain conscious on the next day. He has further stated that in the complaint the name of the. doctor has not been given. Hence apparently he is not a witness to give sweets nor a witness of taking thumb impression nor able to say the name of the doctor who treated the complainant.

6. PW 2 Mohan Mahto is bataidar of the complainant. However, in his evidence has stated that accused person administered laddu and after taking laddu Jai Kishore Pandey got unconscious. He has also stated that Jai Kishore Pandey was taken to the doctor for treatme It and there he was treated. He has admitted that he is bataidar of Jai Kishore Pandey and plowing the land of the complainant and has admitted that there was enmity with the accused person.

7. PW 3 has come to depose that complainant was being administered poison and thereafter be became unconscious. PW 4 has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. PW 5 is hearsay witness.

8. However taking into consideration the evidence of witness. trial Court taking into consideration the evidence of the witnesses as well as taking into consideration the fact that complainant having been examined under Section 200. Cr.P.C, on Solemn Mfmnation on the complaint, Hence treated the statement of the complainant under Section 200. Cr.P.C, admissible in evidence under Section 33 of the Indian Evidence Act and hold that prosecution has been able to prove that accused persons administered pedda or barfi which was poisonous and took thumb impression on plain paper to forge document and convicted the appellant under Section 328 and 465 of the Indian Penal Code. However, acquitted the appellant for the charge under Section 384 of Penal Code.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant however contended that evidence of PWs 2, 3, 4 and 5 suffer from contradictio