AMAR NATH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMAR Nath (the appellant) was arrested in FIR No. 527/1997 under Sections 307/34 IPC registered at PS I.P. Estate and was sent for trial on the allegations that on 05.10.1997 at about 02.30 P.M. he committed house trespass inside jhuggi belonging to Kavinder Kumar at Jamuna Pushta, Gautam Puri after having made preparation to cause hurt. It was further alleged that he, on the exhortation of his companion Dalip Kumar, inflicted injuries to Lal Babu, Kavinder Kumar and Shatrughan with a sickle. The police machinery was set into motion when information about a quarrel at Jamuna Pushta, Gautam Puri was reported and Daily Diary (DD) No. 14 -A (Ex. PW -4/A) was recorded at 02.38 P.M. The investigation was assigned to ASI Jai Pal Singh who with Const. Anand went to the spot. He learnt that the injured had already been taken to hospital. He went to JPN Hospital and collected the MLC of injured Kavinder Kumar, Shatrughan and Lal Babu. He lodged First Information Report after recording Kavinder Kumar's statement (Ex. PW -1/A). Amar Nath and Dalip were arrested. After completion of investigation, a charge -sheet was submitted against the present appellant -Amar Nath. Dalip was discharged on 23.08.1999. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused. In his 313 statement, he pleaded false implication. The appellant was held guilty for committing the offences under Sections 452/326/324 IPC. Vide an order dated 07.11.2001, he was sentenced to undergo RI for three years and three months with total fine Rs.4,000/ -. Being aggrieved, he has preferred the appeal. During the course of hearing, appellant's counsel on instructions stated at Bar that he has opted not to challenge the findings of the Trial Court on conviction under the aforesaid offences. He however, prayed to take lenient view as the appellant has already undergone substantial part of the substantive sentence awarded to him.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. Since the appellant has not opted to challenge conviction and has accepted it voluntarily in the presence of overwhelming evidence in the statements of injured witnesses coupled with medical evidence which is in consonance with ocular testimony, appellant's conviction under the aforesaid offences is affirmed.