JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal from jail by convict Amar Singh who was awarded rigorous imprisonment for three years under section 307 Indian Penal Code He was further convicted under section 121 of the Indian Railways Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months and under section 27 of Indian Arms Act to rigorous imprisonment for two years. The judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City is dated 14-5-73. I have perused the judgment, the record of the case and heard the learned public prosecutor. It will be noticed that the accused has completed the term of imprisonment and the record shows that he was released on 23-7-75. But he has not engaged any counsel nor has he himself appeared in order to pursue this appeal. 2. The prosecution case is that Kanchan Ram PW 1 and Duli Chand PW 2 constables of the Railway Protection Force were on duty on the platform on the railway station Bhandana at the time of the arrival and departure of 14 down train at 10-38 p. m. on 3-9-72. Kanchan Ram saw the accused travelling on the foot-board of TLR which was earring insured articles and the luggage. Kanchan Ram challenged the accused. He got down from the running train and began to run. Kanchan Ram chased and caught him but the accused took out a pistol and fired it at the neck of Kanchan Ram, but Kanchan Ram managed to escape unhurt by just turning his neck. By then constable Duli Chand and Jagdish came to his help and began to beat the accused in order to let him give up his pistol. The accused threw the pistol in a nearby pool filled with rain water. Upon the report of the Assistant Station Master Bandikui a case was registered against the accused. Upon medical examination, it was found that Kanchan Ram had his hair on the left side of the scalp above and in front and back of the ear burnt. There was a superficial skin burnt on the left side of neck. On the other hand, the accused was found to have received 20 injuries comprising several lacerations on the head. He was also suspected of fracture in the head. There were bruises on the shoulder and the chest region. There was a superficial skin burnt on the left side of neck. On the other hand, the accused was found to have received 20 injuries comprising several lacerations on the head. He was also suspected of fracture in the head. There were bruises on the shoulder and the chest region. It appears that the Medical Officer advised X-ray but there is no report of X-ray examination on the record. 3. The learned trial Judge found that the prosecution was able to explain the injuries of the accused as the constables stated that the injuries to the accused were inflicted in self defence. To my mind, the case has not received attention of the learned Sessions Judge to the extent it should have. 4. There are certain features which stand out boldly in the face. It is difficult to believe that it required three persons to beat one single accused so mercilessly in order to disrobe him of his pistol. It is also not possible for me to say that the accused fired a pistol at the neck of Kanchan Ram who was holding the accused and allowed Kanchan Ram to let go without any injury. Report Ex. P. 3 of the Sub-Inspector of the Armoury of the police, Ajmer Range, Jaipur is dated 20-9-72 and it states that the pistol which was recovered next morning from the aforesaid pool was found rusted on account of water, it is not easily possible for a gun to have rusted by remaining in the water only for a few hours. Any way, since the accused has served out the sentence and has not cared to appear to challenge his conviction, no useful purpose will now be served by undertaking an exercise into the examination of the evidence in detail. I am therefore, not inclined to interfere with the findings of the learned Sessions Judge and dismiss this appeal. *******