NARESH KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Naresh Kumar (A-1) (since deceased) represented by Smt.Kanta, Dharam Singh (A-2), Om Prakash (A-3), Ashok and Tripat were arrested in case FIR No. 122/96 under Sections 308/34 IPC registered at PS J.P.Kalan and sent for trial on the allegations that on 05.12.1996 at about 12.10 (Noon) in furtherance of common intention, they inflicted injuries to Balwan Singh and Vijay Singh. Vide order dated 01.04.1999, they were charged under Sections 308/325/34 IPC. The prosecution examined twelve witnesses to bring home their guilt. In their 313 statements, they pleaded false implication and examined DW-1 (Suresh Kumar) in defence. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment dated 09.05.2003 in Sessions Case No. 166/02 held them guilty under Section 325 IPC (A-1) and under Section 323 IPC (A-2 & A-3). It is relevant to note that Ashok and Tripat were acquitted of the charges and the State did not challenge their acquittal. By an order dated 26.05.2003, A-1 to A-3 were released on probation and directed to pay total compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the victims. Being aggrieved, A-1 to A-3 have preferred the appeal. It is apt to note that A-1 expired during the pendency of the appeal and his legal heir Smt.Kanta was permitted to continue with the appeal vide order dated 05.04.2005.

(2.) During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants, on instructions, stated at Bar that the appellants have opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction. He prayed to direct the A-1's employer to release A-1's pension and relied on 'Rajbir vs. State of Haryana, 1985 AIR(SC) 1278'.

(3.) Since the appellants have given up challenge to the findings of the Trial Court on conviction in the presence of overwhelming evidence, the conviction under Section 325/323 IPC is affirmed. The convicts were released on probation and were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the victims which has since been deposited in the Court. Section 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act can be brought to the notice of the concerned authorities for getting the required relief and in case of non-compliance, deceased's legal heirs can avail legal remedies available under law. The Court is not aware as to what disciplinary action (if any) has been initiated by the concerned department against A-1 after his arrest and conviction in the present proceedings or in any other proceedings. Order-sheet dated 08.07.2003 records that A-1 was wanted in a shooting incident and it is not clear if he faced criminal proceedings in the said case or what was its outcome. In the absence of any cogent material before this Court, no direction, as prayed for by the appellant, can be given. In the case of 'Sushil Kumar Singhal vs. Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, 2010 8 SCC 573', the Supreme Court held :