JUDGMENT D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. The appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.8.86 passed in ST No. 43/85 by Addl. Sessions Judge, Satna, wherein appellants No. 1 and 3 were found guilty of offence punishable u/s 394 IPC and were sentenced to three years R.I. together with fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of fine, were required to undergo three months R.I.; and the appellant No. 2 Bhurasingh, having been found guilty for commission of offence punishable u/s 394/397 I.P.C. was sentenced to seven years R.I. together with fine of Rs. 500/- in default whereof, he was required to undergo three months R.I. In the judgment, in regard to Bhura Singh, it appears to have been wrongly mentioned that he has been convicted under Section 394 read with Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code as both the sections required separate punishment. However, it is only a wrong description and is not a material error. 2. The case was heard at length on 26.9.96 and as prayed by the learned counsel for the appellant, the case was marked as part heard and was adjourned as prayed by the learned counsel Shri S.C. Datt as he wanted to place some authority before this Court on the interpretation of the word "causes" as used in Section 397 of the Penal Code, as the submission was that there should be intention to cause such hurt, i.e. the act should be voluntarily and not involuntarily. Time was granted and the case was posted again and again, on prayer being made. The case is posted today. Again today Shri Y. K. Gupta made a mention that the case may not be taken up. But, since the adjournment has been granted six times earlier, it is not fair with the Court to seek adjournment in a part heard case in such manner. The prayer is therefore refused. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant made two fold submissions. (1) That the long period of litigation may be considered as a mitigating factor for the accused persons and sentence deserves to be suitably reduced in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) As regards Bhurasingh. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant made two fold submissions. (1) That the long period of litigation may be considered as a mitigating factor for the accused persons and sentence deserves to be suitably reduced in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. (2) As regards Bhurasingh. a submission was made that his conviction under Section 397 IPC is unwarranted for the reasons that the ingredients of the provisions of Section 397 IPC have not been satisfied by material on record. 5. In view of the aforesaid submissions, it is not necessary to go in all the details of the case. The prosecution case in short was that on 9.3.93 in the night, Shobhnath (PW 4) was working as Chowkidar in Cement Factory Bhadanpur Mines and was on duty. It was about 1.15 a. m. that he heard some sound (Aahat) and took his position at a dark spot and found that the door of the tinshed broken and two cement bags were kept outside and saw two persons coming there, one took one bag of cement and proceeded towards the road and the other, took the other bag of cement and moved for proceeding towards road, whereat he was caught hold by the said Chowkidar Shobhnath (PW 4). The person who was caught, was having a gun with him whereby Shobhnath received injuries in his hand as a result of snantching of the gun. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no user of the gun voluntarily by the appellant No. 2 Bhurasingh nor there is any attempt to cause death and therefore, no case u/s 397 IPC is made out against the appellant No. 2 Bhurasingh. 7. Section 397 IPC is as extracted below :- 397. If. at the time of committing robbery or dacoity, the offender uses any deadly weapon, or causes grievous hurt to any person, or attempts to cause death or grievous hurt to any person, the imprisonment with which such offender shall he punished shall not be less than seven years. 8. So far as the words "uses" is concerned, the submission is that it cannot be said to be user, if during the course of snatching, the gun gets fired. In the present case the submission is not attracted as the other ingredient is "causes" grievous hurt to any person. 8. So far as the words "uses" is concerned, the submission is that it cannot be said to be user, if during the course of snatching, the gun gets fired. In the present case the submission is not attracted as the other ingredient is "causes" grievous hurt to any person. So far as the injury is concerned, it is on metacarpal bone and it is a grievous hurt. as is clearly stated by the learned counsel for the appellants, and it falls within the definition of grievous hurt under Section 320 I.P.C. 9. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the words "causes grievous hurt to any person" used in section 397 IPC need to be interpreted in the manner so to give indication of voluntary act and not involuntary act. Learned counsel for the appellants also invited the attention of the Court to the F. I. R. Ex. P-4 wherein the following recital is contained :- The submission was that, from the above a recital, it is clear that the fire was shot on account of the snatching of the gun. PW 4 Shobhnath has also stated in Para 2 of his statement to the following effect. 10. The argument depends upon the interpretation as has been suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant, of the relevant word "causes" in Section 397 IPC. In Section 397 I. P. C. what is material is causing of grievous hurt and not the intention or the manner. It is not at all necessary that one should have intention to cause such hurt or such should be caused voluntarily and not involuntarily. The material thing is causing of grievous hurt. Thus, the submission as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants has no substance and deserves to be rejected. 11. So far as the first submission is concerned, it is of general nature. In such cases, the mitigating factor can be taken into consideration by the Court which may include the long period of litigation. It is a case where the Court, while dealing with the case, cannot grant any benefit either u/s 360 or 361 Cr. P. C. Accordingly, the first submission also fails. 12. In view of the above, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly rejected. The appellants are on bail. It is a case where the Court, while dealing with the case, cannot grant any benefit either u/s 360 or 361 Cr. P. C. Accordingly, the first submission also fails. 12. In view of the above, the appeal has no merit and is accordingly rejected. The appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds shall be deemed to have been cancelled and the appellants shall be taken into custody to serve out the sentence as has been awarded against them. Appeal dismissed