JUDGMENT : G.K. Misra, C.J. - The Petitioner was convicted under Sections 323, Indian Penal Code and 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act. He was however sentenced u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act to a fine of Rs. 51/ - in default to undergo R.I. for 15 days. No separate sentence was passed u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. An appeal filed by the Petitioner before the learned Additional Sessions Judge was dismissed. 2. Prosecution case is that on 9-7-1972 in the afternoon the Petitioner's cow damaged the paddy plant in the field of the complainant (P.W.1). While the complainant was taking the cow to the pound, the Petitioner obstructed him and demanded release of the cow. On the complainant's refusal the Petitioner dealt two blows with a Panchan on P.W. 1 and rescued the cow. The Petitioner's case is one of denial. The learned Courts below accepted the prosecution story and rejected the defence version. 3. Mr. Misra for the Petitioner contended that (1) the version of PWs. 1 to 3 as to the occurrence and damage to the paddy plant cannot be believed on account of several discrepancies in their evidence, and (2) on the finding of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that the prosecution failed to establish the case of damage, the conviction u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act and u/s 323, Indian Penal Code cannot be sustained. 4. The first contention has no substance. The learned Sessions Judge in paragraph 5 of his judgment discussed the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 and recorded a finding to the effect. "I am not prepared to accept the prosecution case that Appellant's cow 'caused any damage to complainant's paddy crop". In that connection he held that P.W. 1 was the solitary witness on the question of damage and his testimony stands uncorroborated. This is an error of record. On perusal of the evidence of these three witnesses it is clear that P.W. 2 went to see the damage shown by the complainant immediately after the occurrence. Nothing has been brought out in his evidence that he is unreliable or he did not see the occurrence though substantial cross-examination was made. It may be that P.W. 2 might not have been present at the time when the assault was made. Nothing has been brought out in his evidence that he is unreliable or he did not see the occurrence though substantial cross-examination was made. It may be that P.W. 2 might not have been present at the time when the assault was made. But his evidence has not in any way been demolished that he saw the injury on P.W. 1 and saw the damage on the field. He has got his land at a distance of about 400 cubits to the north of the land of P.W. 1. The complainant showed him the damage on the land and he saw a portion of the paddy plant damaged. P.w. 3's evidence fully supports P.W. 1. He was working inside his bari which was unfenced and he saw the assault by the Petitioner on P.W. 1. He clearly stated that the place of assault and the damaged land are visible to his bari. He went to the place of assault and to the place of damage being called by P.W. 1 and noticed some damage to the paddy on the land. Nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination to demolish his assertion in the examination-in-chief. The learned magistrate was therefore perfectly justified in holding that the Petitioner's cow damaged the paddy plant of P.W. 1 and at the time P.W. 1 was taking the cow to the pound the Petitioner assaulted P.W. 1 when he did not agree to release the cow. The learned Sessions Judge's finding on this point cannot be sustained that P.W.1's evidence is uncorroborated. 5. Even assuming that P.W. 1's evidence is uncorroborated there is no reason why his uncorroborated testimony would not, be accepted and more so in view of the fact that his evidence is corroborated by the injuries on his body. It has now been authoritatively pronounced in Ram Ratan alias Ratan Ahir and Others Vs. The State of Bihar and Another, that even if a person illegally seizes cattle from the land of another he does not commit an offence either under the Cattle Trespass Act or under the Indian Penal Code. As no offence is committed, there is no right of private defence of property against the person who illegally seized the cattle. The State of Bihar and Another, that even if a person illegally seizes cattle from the land of another he does not commit an offence either under the Cattle Trespass Act or under the Indian Penal Code. As no offence is committed, there is no right of private defence of property against the person who illegally seized the cattle. This being the legal position, the Petitioner cannot take a stand that there being no damage to the paddy, he had right of private defence of property in releasing the cow and as such the assault on P.W. 1 is justified, the harm caused not being in excess of what was necessary for the purpose of defence. 6. Even if Mr. Misra's contention that the Additional Sessions Judge has not believed the story of damage is accepted, still the Petitioner is liable to be convicted and sentenced u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court did not pass any sentence u/s 323, Indian Penal Code. If the appellate Court is taken to have recorded a finding that no offence u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act was committed, still then the conviction u/s 323, Indian Penal Code stands. Though no sentence was imposed u/s 323, Indian Penal Code, the same can be imposed now if it is found that the conviction u/s 24 of the Cattle Trespass Act is not sustainable. In view of my finding that the conviction under both the sections are sustainable, this question is however academic. 7. There is no merit in this revision and it is accordingly dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed