MOHAMMAD NAIR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MOHD .Nair (the appellant) impugns a judgment dated 17.02.2011 of learned Additional Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No. 105/2008 arising out of FIR No. 74/2007 PS J.P.Kalan by which he was convicted under Sections 323/395 IPC. By an order dated 19.02.2011, he was sentenced to undergo RI for five years with fine Rs. 10,000/-.

(2.) ALLEGATIONS against the appellant were that on the night intervening 15/16.05.2007 at about 11.00 P.M. he and his associates Mohd.Tehkhan (since PO), Mohd. Shahnawaj Alam and Mohd.Chunna (both facing trial before Juvenile Justice Board) and other 5 ­ 6 associates barged into the fields of Naresh Kumar with common intention to steal the CI Pipes kept in the godown. Naresh Kumar was sleeping on the roof of the godown. Chet Ram, Ramashish, Avdesh and Vinod were sleeping in the room below. The assailants on arrival near the godown gave beatings to the labourers, locked them in the room and started loading pipes in the truck bearing registration No. DLIM-2599 make Tata. Naresh Kumar woke up and ran into the village to seek assistance of the villagers. When they reached the spot, the assailants started fleeing in different directions. They were apprehended. A knife, a chura, an iron rod and wooden rods were recovered from their possession. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts during investigation. After completion of investigation, the accused were charge-sheeted. The prosecution examined fourteen witnesses to prove the guilt of the accused. In their 313 statements, they pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment, held Mohd.Matin, Mohd. Nair and Mohd.Tassivul guilty for committing the various offences and sentenced them. Being aggrieved, the appellant- Mohd. Nair has preferred the appeal. During the course of arguments, Mohd.Nair's counsel on

(3.) SINCE the appellant (Mohd.Nair) has opted not to challenge conviction under Sections 323/395 IPC and accepts it, the findings of the Trial Court on conviction qua him are affirmed.