N.N. Mathur, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19.12.1981 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh convicting each of the appellants for offence under Section 147 I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo two years' R.I. and for offence under Section 325/149 sentencing them to 3 years' R.I. and each of them to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment to further undergo 4 months' S.I. The appellants have also been convicted of offence under Section 324/149 I.P.C. sentencing them to 2 years' R.I. The appellants have also been convicted under Section 342 I.P.C. sentencing them to 1 year's R.I. All the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) The prosecution case is that on 21.1.1981 the injured PW/5 Manphool boarded a train at Hanumangarh town. He got down at Sheraka Railway Station at about 8 p.m. while he was passing through village Jhambar, near the house of Shyopat Meghwal, the accused persons alongwith Moulo Devi armed with Gandasi, Sela and Lathis attacked on him. They were saying that the enemy has arrived and he should be killed. On account of the injury sustained, he became unconscious. PW/6 Shivchand informed to Brijlal and Police arrive on the spot. PW/7 Amichand went to the Surpanch and Shiv Chand lodged a F.I.R. of the incident at Police Station Hanumangarh town. The Police registered a case and proceeded with the investigation. After the usual investigation, Police filed a charge-sheet against the accused persons for the various offences as stated above. During the trial, number of witnesses were examined. The trial court found the prosecution case proved and convicted the appellant as stated above. I am informed that during the pendency of the appeal, appellant No. 5. Harji Ram has died.
(3.) Various contentions have been raised by Mr. Vishnoi assailing the judgment of the trial court. To appriciate the contentions, I have scaned, the prosecution evidence. Ocular testimony of PW/6 Shive Chand and PW/2 Adu Ram finds corroboration from the medical evidence. Manphool has received as many as 26 injuries out of which 2 injuries are grievous in nature. However, the injuries do not appear to be of very serious nature. Thus whiie confirming conviction of appellant on each count, in my view there are no special reasons for refusing the benefit of Section 360 Cr.P.C.;