JUDGMENT 1. - This is a jail appeal filed by Sheodan against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ganganagar City, dated 12.4.1974,by which he was convicted under Section 365,Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of fine Rs. 250/- in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The prosecution case against the appellant was that on 4.4.1970 at about 11 in the night he along with other co-accused made an assault on Ganga Sahai and Brij Bhan in the way between villages Singhaniya and Bhadoro, while they were bringing two bags of sugar and other articles in bullock-cart. It was further alleged from the side of the prosecution that after beating Ganga Sahai and Brij Bhan the miscreants forcibly removed Ganga Sahai from there and took him to village Singhanihya where he was held in confinement in the house of Mangi Lal for about an hour. Thereafter he was removed and locked in the 'Patore' (residential house) of Mool Chand in the same village. Ganga Sahai had a sum of Rs. 676/- in his pocket. He was robbed of that money by the accused persons and was subsequently released on the next day in the morning. A report of this incident was lodged by Brij Bhan with the police on 5.4.1970 at police station, Hindaun. The police registered a criminal case under Sections 365, 147 and 149 Indian Penal Code on the basis of the report and started investigation. After usual investigation the police put up a charge-sheet against Sheodan and his 8 other companions in the court of the Additional Munsiff Magistrate, Hindaun who after holding an inquiry preparatory to commitment, sent the appellant and his associate to the court of the Sessions for trial under section 397 and 365 IPC. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, who tried the appellant and the other co-accused found Sheodan guilty of an offence punishable under section 365, IPC only. Along with the appellant he convicted Kalyan. Har Swaroop, Balla and Bhartoo also for the said offence. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences Bhartoo, Ballas, Kalyan, and Har Swaroop alias Ram Swaroop preferred an appeal to this Court which was decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.P. Jain on 20.6.1973. Along with the appellant he convicted Kalyan. Har Swaroop, Balla and Bhartoo also for the said offence. Aggrieved by their convictions and sentences Bhartoo, Ballas, Kalyan, and Har Swaroop alias Ram Swaroop preferred an appeal to this Court which was decided by Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.P. Jain on 20.6.1973. The learned Single Judge of this Court maintained the conviction of the aforesaid persons, under Section 365, Indian Penal Code, but reduced the substantive sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment awarded to each of them to a term of one years' rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine awarded to each of them was, however, confirmed. Sheodan's appeal was not before the learned Single Judge of this Court. Hence it could not be decided along with the appeal filed by Bhartoo and others. 3. I have gone through the record and heard Shri G.A. Khan appearing on behalf of the State. There is reliable evidence of Ganga Sahai P.W.2 on the record for proving the connection of the appellant with the offence punishable under section 365, IPC. Ganga Sahai stated on oath that while he was drawing the bullock-cart, 15 or 16 persons surrounded him of whom he could identify shoedan, appellant. Ghamandai, Dharma, Salla, Bhartoo, Kalyan, Hira Swaroop, Hira chand, Choru, Moolchand, Phoolchand, Kunj. Jhaby and Hamid. All these persons attached him with lathi. He sustained injuries on his head, feet and nose. Out of fear of being killed, he took shelter under neath the cart but he was dragged by the accused persons and forcibly removed to village Singhaniya where he was held in confinement in the house of Mangilal for an hour. Thereafter he was compelled to go to Mool Chand's residential house wherein chains were put in his feet. After some time Kalyan and Kunji co-accused came in the house and forcibly took away money from his pocket. Ganga Sahai was detained in the house of Mool Chand in the night. On the next day in the morning he was taken out of the house of Mool Chand and thrown outside the village. After some time the police reached the place where he was lying. The police sent him for medical examination. Ganga Sahai was detained in the house of Mool Chand in the night. On the next day in the morning he was taken out of the house of Mool Chand and thrown outside the village. After some time the police reached the place where he was lying. The police sent him for medical examination. The evidence of Ganga Sahai was corroborated to some extent by the testimony of Brij Mohan who was sitting in the bullock-cart at the time of occurrence Brij Mohan named all the 14 accused persons including the appellant who had participated in making an attack on him and Ganga Sahai. His evidence that Salla and Mool Chand inflicted lathi below on Ganga Sahai while Hira Chand and Kunji caused injuries to him and Chuni. He further stated that Ganga Sahai was forcibly taken away by the appellant & his companions. The evidence of Ganga Sahai and Brij Bhan has not been shaken at all in cross examination. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimony, especially when, upon scrutiny, it has been found trust worthy on merits. 4. Although Chunni Ram P.W.3 could not identify the appellant and his companions in the trial court, yet he categorically stated that about 10 to 15 persons had made a concerned attack on him, Ganga Sahai and Brij Bhan and that he also had received injuries. The evidence of Ganga Sahai and Brij Bhan is further corroborated by the testimony of Dr. N.L. Bhardwaj as to the presence of injuries on their bodies on 5.4.1970. From the evidence of Dr. N.L. Bhardwaj it is proved that Ganga Sahai had as many as 9 injuries on different parts of this body while Brij Bhan and Chunni Ram had one and three injuries respectively on their persons. Consequently, I have no hesitation in holding that Shoedan appellant was one of the miscreants who attacked Ganga Sahai. Brij Bhan and Chunni Ram while they were going in a bullock-cart in way between Singhaniya and Bhartoo on 4.4.1970 in the night and who thereafter forcibly took away Ganga Sahai to village Singhaniya with the intention to cause him to be secretly and wrongfully held confined and who in fact secretly and wrongfully held Ganga Sahai in confinement in the room of Mangla and thereafter in the house of Mool Chand during the night. Ganga Sahai clearly stated on oath that in the light of lantern burning in the room of Mangla he identified all the accused persons. He knew these accused persons including the appellant before hand because they lived in village Singhaniya which lies at a distance of about one mile from village Salimpur where Brij Bhan and Ganga Sahai used to live in those days. Hence, it cannot be said that Ganga Sahai could not identify the assailants in the night when he was attacked and forcibly removed to village Singhaniya. The prosecution has succeeded in bringing the guilt home to Shoedan under Section 365, Indian Penal Code beyond any reasonable shadow of doubt. There are no grounds for interference with the finding of the trial court as to conviction of this appellant. 5. As regards the sentence, it may be observed that in the appeal filed by Bhartoo and others (S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 228 of 1973) this court has already reduced the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to each of the aforesaid persons to a term of one year's rigorous imprisonment for reasons mentioned in the judgement of Hon'ble Ms.Justice J.P. Jain, with which I fully agree. The exact part played by the appellant in the commission of crime is not greater than the role played by the other co-accused. In this appeal also while maintaining the conviction of Sheodan appellant under Section 365, Indian Penal Code. I think it proper to reduce the substantive sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant to a term of rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence of fine and indefault of payment of fine the sentence of three months' rigorous imprisonment is, however, to be confirmed. 6. I, therefore, partly accept the appeal and while maintaining the conviction of Sheodan under Section 365, Indian Penal Code reduce the substantive sentence of three year's rigorous imprisonment awarded to him by the trial Judge to a term of one year's rigorous imprisonment. The sentence of fine of Rs. 250/-, and in default of payment to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months is, however, confirmed. The appellant has already undergo a sentence of about one year and seven months. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in connection with some other case. *******