( 1 ) IN this conviction appeal, the accused, through jail, has assailed the legality and validity of the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned additional Sesssions Judge, at Junagadh in Sessions Case No. 60 of 1983 on 8. 12. 1983. The appellant/accused is found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 393 read with sections 397 and 394 of the Indian Penal Code ("ipc" for short ). He is also found guilty for the offence punishable under Section 25 (1 ) (a) of the Arms Act, 1959 ("act" lor short ). The accused is imposed sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 and in default to undergo further imprisonment for 3 months for the offence under Section 393 read with Section 397 of the IPC. He is also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days for the offence under Section 25 (l) (a) of the Act. The aforesaid offences arc order to run concurrently.

( 2 ) A resume of the material facts leading to the filing of the present appeal may be stated at this juncture. According to the prosecution, on 10. 5. 1983 at about 7. 30 P. M. on the way between village Supra and Dhava, at village Dhava, in Talala Taluka of Junagadh District, the accused had stopped the bullock cart c. " one Mansukhbhai Ukabhai, wherein, the complainant-Kurji Tida and the injured witness-Ramji Nathu were sitting. It is alleged by the prosecution that, thereafter the accused at the point of gun, demanded an amount of rs. 5,000. Witness Mansukh Uka was in-charge of the bullock-cart and accused was told by the complainant-Kurji Tida that it was not possible to give that much amount. Thereafter the accused inflicted blows with the bull of the gun on Ramji Nathu and caused injuries on his person. In the meantime, village people had collected and the accused was beaten and taken to Panchayat Office of village Dhava. The police was informed-and the complaint was recorded and offence was registered against the-accused. On completion of the investigation, the accused was charge sheeted in the Sessions Court. Upon appreciation of the facts and circumstances and the evidence or record, the learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned order of conviction and sentence. Hence this appeal at the instance of the accused through jail. Learned advocate Mr. M. J. Budhbhatti was appointed for the defence of the accused.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel Mr. Budhbhatli, forcefully, contended that the guilt, of the accused is not established beyond reasonable doubt. He was also, alternatively contended that at the best the accused could be held guilty for the offence punishable under Section 385 of the IPC. He further contended that the accused had already undergone imprisonment for more than ten months and, therefore, it should be considered as sufficient sentence. The aforesaid contentions are countenanced by the learned A. P. P. Mr. Dave while appearing for the respondent-State.

( 4 ) AS regards the first submission, it may be noted that it is not acceptable in view of the evidence, on record. The prosecution witness No. 1, Kurji Tida, who is the complainant, is examined at Ex. 6. His evidence is found quite trust-worthy and reliable. His evidence has remained unshaken. His evidence is fully supported by the evidence of p. W. 2, Ramji Nathu, at Ex. 7. He is an injured witness, who had sustained serious injuries on his right hand. He had sustained fracture of right hand. His evidence is also fully reinforced by the evidence of Medical Officer, Dr. D. B. Goswami, who is examined at ex. 21. Medical certificate in respect of the injury is produced at Ex. 22. Dr. Goswami, at ex. 21, fully supported the version of the injured prosecution witness, Ramji Nathu. The prosecution version is also fully reinforced by the evidence of eye witness, P. W. 3, mansukh Oka, at Ex. 8. Thus, clear and consistent evidence of three eye witnesses supported by the medical evidence coupled w