Judgment H.R. Panwar, J.-This criminal jail appeal is directed against the Judgment and order dated 29.08.2003 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Bikaner (for short “the trial Court” hereinafter) in Sessions Case No. 83/2003, whereby the trial Court held the appellant guilty of the offences under Sections 323, 325, 458 and 397, IPC. He was convicted for the above offences and following sentences were awarded:- Under Section 323 IPC : Six months’ SI with a fine of Rs. 200/-. Under Section 325, IPC : 4 years’ SI with a fine of Rs. 500/-. Under Section 458, IPC : 3 years’ SI with a fine of Rs. 500/-. Under Section 397, IPC : 7 years’ SI with a fine of Rs. 1000/-. 2. In default of payment of fine the appellant was ordered to further undergo one week, 15 days, 15 days and one month’s simple imprisonment respectively. All the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. I have heard learned amicus curiae for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. Perused the Judgment and order of the trial Court and also scanned and scrutinised the evidence on record. 4. It was contended by the learned amicus curiae that the offence under Section 397 IPC is not made out against the appellant. He contended that the offence cannot travel beyond Section 394, IPC. Learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State supported the Judgment and order of the trial Court and contended that the accused appellant while committing robbery/dacoity, caused grievous hurt to PW. 8 Nirmala Devi and also made an attempt to cause death and, therefore, the trial Court was justified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 397 IPC for which the punishment cannot be less than 7 years. 5. PW. 1 Kesrichand lodged FIR Ex. P. 1 to the Police Station Kotwali, Bikaner alleging therein that at about mid-night i.e., 12.30 five accused persons committed lurking house trespass with the intention to commit murder and thereafter dacoity. All the accused persons including the appellant were named in the FIR. After investigation police laid challan against the appellant as also co-accused Chhotu @ Raju and Vinod under Section 299, CrPC as both of them are absconding. Accused Govind and Pramod were found to be below 18 years of age being juvenile and, therefore, they were produced before the Juvenile Court. After investigation police laid challan against the appellant as also co-accused Chhotu @ Raju and Vinod under Section 299, CrPC as both of them are absconding. Accused Govind and Pramod were found to be below 18 years of age being juvenile and, therefore, they were produced before the Juvenile Court. The prosecution produced PW.1 Kesrichand, PW. 2 Tansukhdas, PW.3 Kanchan Devi, PW. 4 Dr. Shailendra Mathur, PW. 5 Dr. P.N. Mathur, PW. 6 Mahavir Prasad, PW. 7 Dr. Vinod Bihani, PW. 8 Nirmala Devi and produced documents Ex.P. 1 to Ex.P. 17. The accused made statement under Section 313 CrPC and denied the occurrence. 6. PW. 1 Kesrichand stated that he knew appellant Indra Dev. Chhotu @ Raju is resident of Bihar and is domestic servant, therefore, he used to sleep at his residence. On intervening night of 22nd and 23rd of May, 2002 at about 12.30 mid-night while he alongwith his wife PW. 3 Kanchan Devi, his sister PW. 8 Nirmala Devi was sleeping in their house, at that time with the intention to kill them and to commit dacoity, his domestic servant Raju, Vinod, Indra Dev, Pramod and Govind who were hiding themselves on the roof of the house came to place, where the complainant and other family members were sleeping and started pressing the neck on which he woke-up and the accused expand his mouth. One of the accused sat over his chest and tried to expand his mandible. He was also pressing his neck in order to kill him. PW. 8 Nirmala Devi his sister was sleeping towards the right side on a bed. Raju and appellant Indra Dev both started pressing the neck of Nirmala and assaulted her. Nirmala suffered fracture of mandible as also the injury on the fingers. Accused Pramod and Govind were pressing the neck of his wife PW. 3 Kanchan Devi and assaulting her. On their raising cries the accused persons ran away. He immediately telephoned to the police and then lodged the FIR Ex. P. 1. He further stated that the accused persons wanted to commit a dacoity of jewellary, cash etc. from his house. A letter from Indra Dev happened to fell on the spot reveals that a sum of Rs. 2500/-were asked from his village side. He further stated that Raju wanted Rs. P. 1. He further stated that the accused persons wanted to commit a dacoity of jewellary, cash etc. from his house. A letter from Indra Dev happened to fell on the spot reveals that a sum of Rs. 2500/-were asked from his village side. He further stated that Raju wanted Rs. 5,000/-from him as advance but he did not give him and, therefore, all the accused persons committed the offence. He further stated that he knew appellant Indra Dev as he was earlier a domestic servant of his mother as also he has worked as domestic servant of his sister. A diary of accused was also found at the bed of Nirmala which was belonging to accused. 7. PW. 3 Kanchan Devi stated that appellant Indra Dev and co-accused Chhotu assaulted PW. 8 Nirmala. She further stated that appellant Indra Dev was pressing the neck of Nirmala and assaulting her as the accused wanted to kill them and then to commit robbery. She further stated that she knew Indra Dev as he was a domestic servant of his mother-in-law as well as sister-in-law. She further stated that at the relevant time of occurrence the lights in the house were on and she has identified the accused persons. 8. PW. 8 Nirmala Devi stated that while she was sleeping she found weight on her chest and suddenly she woke-up on which she found that accused Chhotu was sitting on her chest and pressing her neck in order to kill her. Accused appellant Indra Dev was standing by the side of Chhotu. Then both of them enlarged her mandible due to which she suffered mandible fracture. She also suffered the fracture of ring finger. Accused Chhotu has snatched the chain from her neck. All the accused wanted to kill three of the occupants of the house including her and wanted to take away all the articles. They raised hue and cry on which the accused ran away. They were taken to the hospital where she was medically examined. In cross examination she categorically stated that appellant Indra Dev caused the fracture of mandible bone. As such the grievous injury has been assigned to the appellant. 9. PW. 4 Dr. Shailendra Mathur, medical jurist, examined PW. 8 Nirmala and noticed that she suffered as many as six abrasions around the neck as also there was swelling on ring finger and pain in chest. As such the grievous injury has been assigned to the appellant. 9. PW. 4 Dr. Shailendra Mathur, medical jurist, examined PW. 8 Nirmala and noticed that she suffered as many as six abrasions around the neck as also there was swelling on ring finger and pain in chest. She was advised X-Ray and the opinion of dentist. She was operated upon by PW. 7 Dr. Vinod Bihani, Professor and Head of Department, a Dentist, of PBM Hospital, Bikaner. He stated that the injury to the little finger and mandible were grievous in nature. He stated that Nirmala was brought to the hospital in unconscious condition with a fracture of mandible. He operated her and did the wiring of mandible. There were multiple injuries on the face. 10. PW. 6 Mahavir Prasad, the Investigating Officer, Station House Officer of Police Station Kotwali, Bikaner, lodged the FIR Ex.P. 1 at 2.15 am. on the basis of which chak FIR was drawn Ex.P. 2. He investigated the matter and inspected the site. He found a diary happened to fall from the pocket of the accused containing a letter dated 06.05.2002. He also recovered the chappals and shoes from the house of the complainant and got the injured medically examined. He arrested the appellant on 23.05.2002 while he was trying to board the train from Bikaner railway station. 11. On close scrutiny of the statement of various prosecution witnesses, as discussed above, the prosecution has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The appellant was identified as he was previously known to almost all the three eyewitnesses viz. Kesrichand, Kanchan Devi and Nirmala as the appellant and other co-accused were the domestic servants of the family members of the complainant. It has also been proved that the appellant caused grievous hurt to PW . 8 Nirmala while committing the dacoity. There were as many as five accused persons as noticed above. Thus, from the prosecution evidence it is amply established that the accused appellant alongwith co-accused made a lurking house trespass in the house of the complainant and made an attempt to cause death as also caused grievous hurt to Nirmala in order to commit the dacoity. On the strength of the evidence produced by the prosecution the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences noticed above. On the strength of the evidence produced by the prosecution the trial Court was justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences noticed above. I do not find any error or infirmity in the Judgment and order impugned of the trial Court. The sentence awarded cannot be said to be disproportionate as Section 397, IPC provides that the sentence of imprisonment shall not be less than seven years’. 12. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed. The Judgment and order passed by the trial Court is hereby affirmed.