In criminal cases, the consistency of witness statements and the presence of motive are crucial for establishing guilt.

Nirmal Singh, J.

1. This appeal has been directed against the order dated 17.7.1996 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri vide which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 307 IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was further directed to undergo R.I. for one month. The appellant is further directed to undergo R.I. for five years under Section 328 IPC. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution story in brief is that on 31.7.1993, Ramesh Chand was called by Krishan Chand to have a talk with regard to agricultural land. On this at about 8.30 p.m. Ramesh Chand went to the house of Krishan Chand where Krishan Chand served him with a glass of milk. While taking a sip of the milk, Ramesh Chand felt smell of kerosene oil. He told Krishan Chand about the same and refused to consume the rest of the milk. On this, Krishan Chand added some more sugar in the milk and insisted Ramesh Chand to drink it. Ramesh Chand again took one sip and left the milk as he could not find it tasty. He kept the glass and started for his house. On the way, he felt giddiness and started vomiting and fell unconscious. He was taken to the hospital of Dr. R.K. Gupta at Yamunanagar by his brother Satish Chand. From there, he was shifted to Civil Hospital, Jagadhari. The doctor sent ruqa Exh. PJ to the police. S.I. Des Raj, went to the Civil Hospital, Jagadhari and moved an application Exh. PK before the doctor to know whether Ramesh Chand was fit to make statement. The doctor opined vide Exh. PK/1 that Ramesh Kumar was fit to make statement and that statement Exh. PF was recorded on the basis of which formal FIR Exh. PF/2 was recorded.

3. Krishan Kumar was arrested on 2.8.1993 and made disclosure statement Exh. PB in the presence of Phool Singh, Sarpanch and Puran Singh, Ex-sarpanch. On interrogation, the accused got recovered one vial of Sulphose. The same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Exh. PA. After completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate. As the case was exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it was sent to that Court. On commitment, the case was entrusted to the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhari. The accused was tried under Section 307 read with Section 328 IPC, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

4. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined PW-1 Suresh, elder brother of Ramesh Chand, PW-2 Ajaib Singh, a formal witness, PW-3 Puran Chand, PW-4 Devi Dayal, he has prepared the site plan, PW-5 Ramesh Chand, complainant, PW-6 Narain Singh, PW-7 Phool Singh, PW-8 Des Raj, A.S.I. Investigator of the case, PW-9 Dr. Rajbir Singh, who has medico-legally examined Ramesh Chand. Prosecution also tendered into evidence the affidavits of formal witnesses along with the report of F.S.L. and closed its evidence.

5. When the appellant was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. to explain the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence, he denied simplicitor and alleged false implication. Krishan Chand, appellant pleaded that the present case been registered in order to put pressure on him to withdraw the civil cases pending against Phool Singh who wanted to grab his land. The appellant was called to lead defence. In defence, he did not examine any witness.

6. After hearing the Public Prosecutor, counsel for the appellant and perusing the record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jagadhri convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated in para 1 of the judgment. Aggrieved by which, the present appeals have been preferred.

7. Mr. S.S. Dinarpur, learned counsel for the appellant assailed the judgment of the trial Court on the ground that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the evidence on record in the right perspective. He contended that as per the complainant Ramesh Chand, the appellant has adminis