JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dausa dated August 29, 1975 by which he convicted and sentenced the appellant as follows:- (1) under section 458, Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and to pay a find of Rs. 200/- in default whereof to rigorous imprisonment for six months. (2) under section 398, Indian Penal Code, to rigorous imprisonment for 7 years. (3) under section 307 read with 34, Indian Penal Code to rigorous imprisonment for four years and a fine of Rs. 100/- in default whereof to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were directed to run concurrently. 3. The appellant is in jail and was heard in person. The record was also perused. 4. The facts of the case are that on the night falling between the 3rd and the 4th January, 1975, Prabhati Lal was sleeping in the pol of his house in the village Ghata Balaji within police station Manpur, when three person entered in the pol and flashed a torch light and approached the cot of Prabhati Lal. Sadhu appellant is alleged to have taken out a pistol and threatened Prabhati Lal to deliver all the valuables he had and further if he raised any alarm he was likely to be killed. Prabhati Lal thus frightened, lead the accused to the room where his wife who was sleeping inside, refused to open the door. Thereupon it is alleged, the accused opened fire but it missed to hit Prabhati Lal and instead struck against a wall. Prabhati Lal was emboldened and caught hold of the accused from behind his back and raised a cry. The accused bit his thumb, while his companion gave a Danda blow on his head. The third man opened his pistol to kill Prabhati Lal but instead, the pellets hit the accused appellant Sadhu on whom Prabhati Lal continued to tight on his grip until Ram Sahai, Mangla and Lalloo etc. came to his house. Seeing the rescue party approaching, the two colleagues of the accused took to their heels and were able to escape but Sadhu could not. He was taken by the persons assembled to Gita Bhawan and was later on handed over the police. 5. came to his house. Seeing the rescue party approaching, the two colleagues of the accused took to their heels and were able to escape but Sadhu could not. He was taken by the persons assembled to Gita Bhawan and was later on handed over the police. 5. In this occurrence Prabhati Lal received a lacerated wound on the fore-head and multiple abrasions on the dorsal aspect of the left thumb caused by tooth bite. Even his nail was exposed & removed from its bed. The accused appellant Sadhu had to be admitted to the hospital, Jaipur and upon x-ray rounded well outlined dense metallic shadows of the size of 2m. approximately 35 to 36 in number, were detected. 6. The accused was charged under section 458, 398 and 307 read with 34, Indian Penal Code to which he pleaded not guilty and in his statement, he said that he was arrested in the morning. The pistol and cartridges did not belong to him. He maintained that he had come for Darshan of Balaji. Prabhati Lal plies a hourse carriage and he caught him and took away his Rs. 1000/-, a blanket, a bucket and other articles. Prabhati Lal was accompanied by three other person and it was Prabhati Lal who injured him with the gun. Before me the accused urged that he did not belong to the State of Rajasthan but lived in Achalnagar, District Menpuri and had come for the Darshan of Balaji. He could not say how he was injured but he was falsely implicated. 7. The learned Additional Sessions Judge believed the testimony of the witnesses and came to the conclusion that the accused along with his companions entered the house of the complainant Prabhati Lal stealthily by concealing their identity & also by the passage not meant for them. Thus, he was guilty of lurking house trespass by night. The accused also pointed the pistol at the time in order to commit robbery. Two of them actually aimed their pistols at him but any how the pistol at one time hit the wall and at the other the accused. The accused was also found guilty under section 398, Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also found that the offence of the accused equally fell under section 307, Indian Penal Code read with section 34 thereof. The accused was also found guilty under section 398, Indian Penal Code. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has also found that the offence of the accused equally fell under section 307, Indian Penal Code read with section 34 thereof. I am in entire agreement with the findings of the learned lower court & the case against him was well established by the prosecution witnesses. The sentence awarded also does not fall for any interference. 8. I, therefore, see no force in this appeal and dismiss the same. The conviction and sentence of the accused appellant are maintained. *******