Short Note : 1. According to the prosecution, on 26-10-1973, at about 9 P.M., near the Hanuman temple, the appellant was abusing Ramrichpal and the members of the Agarwal community. In the meantime, Ramrichpal reached there. The appellant's house is said to have been situated near that place and so he brought a knife from his house. The appellant then inflicted a knife blow on the back of Ramrichpal (P.W.1) By that time, other people had also collected and they rushed to the rescue of Ramrichpal. One of such people was Krishna Kumar (P.W.2) and the appellant inflicted another knife blow to Krishna Kumar. Both Ramrichpal and Krishna Kumar were taken to the hospital. 2. The appellant was prosecuted under section 307 I.P.C., but was found guilty of an offence under section 324 I.P.C., and was sentenced to 4 months R.I., by Sessions Court. Hence this appeal. Held : From the prosecution evidence, which is well corroborated by the First Information Report as also by the injuries, it is fully established that the appellant was the person who inflicted the knife blows and caused the injuries to Ramrichpal (P.W.) and Krishna Kumar (P.W.2). The evidence of Shaligram (P.W.3) makes out that the appellant, after some altercation at the initial stage, had gone to his sister's house and thereafter returned back. It is at that stage that he stabbed the two persons, named above. There is nothing to probabilize that the appellant caused the injuries in exercise of right of private defence. From the circumstances, which find support even from the evidence of Shaligram, the greater possibility appears to be that initially there was some incident as a result of which the appellant had gone to his house and had thereafter returned. It is in that earlier incident that the appellant may have received the minor injuries as were found on his person. The evidence of Ramsingh Verma (P.W.1) is wholly unnatural and does not inspire any confidence. The defence of the appellant deserves to be rejected. The conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is, therefore, fully justified. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant had urged that the incident is about more than four years old and the sentence awarded to the appellant is four months rigorous imprisonment on each count which has to run concurrently. The conviction of the appellant for an offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code is, therefore, fully justified. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant had urged that the incident is about more than four years old and the sentence awarded to the appellant is four months rigorous imprisonment on each count which has to run concurrently. The counsel appearing for the State did not dispute that the appellant has been in custody for about ten days as has been mentioned by the Court below in para 21 of the judgment. Under section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, this period has to be given as set off in the sentence that has been awarded. The fact, however, remains that the appellant also appears to have been man-handled. In these circumstances the sentence awarded to the appellant deserves to be reduced to a period of ten days during which he has already been in custody and which he is entitled to set off. Appeal partly allowed.