JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner Mani Ram stood convicted under sections 326 and 324, I.P.C. and was sentenced to four months rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default whereof to additional rigorous imprisonment for one month by the learned Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. No separate sentence was awarded under section 324, as he was sentenced for the major offence. His conviction under section 367, I. P. C. was set aside. Along with Mani Ram one Budhram was also tried. His conviction under section 367, .I. P. C. was also set aside, but he was held guilty of offence under section 323, I. P. C. and was given the benefit of probation. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Darshansingh lodged a report on 29.8.1972 at Police Station Sadar, Ganganagar. It was alleged that he had gone to village Banwala with his wife in order to meet his in-laws. His wife was not keeping well and he was to go to a Maulvi to obtain talisman and, therefore, he went to the house of one Heeralal to get his bicycle. Heeralal said that his bicycle was out of order. He then started for the house of his brother-in-law Chandsingh and in the way the accused persons met him and on being asked he disclosed his identity as the brother-in-law of Chandsingh. It is said that the accused caught hold of him, lifted him and carried him to their house. Inside the house Maniram delivered sword blows on his left scapula and left arm and on the left little finger, which was cut. His shouts attracted his mother-in-law Jal Kaur. When she intervened, accused Budhram delivered lathi blows on her. A case under sections 367, 326/34 & 324/34, I.P.C. was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was presented in the Court of Munsif-Magistrate, Ganganagar. The accused persons were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. His shouts attracted his mother-in-law Jal Kaur. When she intervened, accused Budhram delivered lathi blows on her. A case under sections 367, 326/34 & 324/34, I.P.C. was registered and after investigation charge-sheet was presented in the Court of Munsif-Magistrate, Ganganagar. The accused persons were tried by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar. Both the accused persons were convicted under section 367, I. P. C. and accused Maniram was convicted under section 326, 323, read with S. 34, I. P. C. and 324, I. P. C. Accused Budhram was further convicted under sections 326 read with S. 34, I. P. C., 324 read with section 34, I. P. C. and 323 I. P. C. Both of them were awarded varying sentences for each offence and, all the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Both the accused persons went in appeal before the Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar, who set aside the convictions of the accused persons for the offence under section 367, I. P. C. and convicted and sentenced the present petitioner as aforesaid. The other accused Budhram was given the benefit of probation, as stated supra. Accused Maniram, dis-satisfied with his conviction and sentence, has preferred this revision petition. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the story relating to the offence under section 367, I. P. C. has not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge, which shows that the occurrence did not take place in the manner as alleged by the prosecution. The learned Sessions Judge has observed that the occurrence appears to have taken place when the accused wanted to have a drink on deferred payment, from the liquor shop of the accused and on his refusal the complainant got annoyed and broke the bottles and in that scuffle the accused seems to have been hit by the accused Maniram with a sharp weapon. The learned counsel urged that this possibility cannot be ruled out that the injured might have received the injury on his finger as a result of the breaking of the bottles by him and as per medical evidence the injuries on the person of Darshansingh could be self inflicted. He also urged that when the complainant had damaged the bottles by breaking them the right of private defence of property arises. He also urged that when the complainant had damaged the bottles by breaking them the right of private defence of property arises. Even if it is found that hurt was caused by the present petitioner, it should be held to have been caused in exercise of the right of private defence of the property. 5. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel, but I do not find any force in them. It may be stated that despite the medical opinion I am unable to hold that the injuries on the person of Darshansingh could be self inflicted. There are three incised wounds and out of the three, injury No. 1 is grievous one whereby distal phalanx of little finger was cut, that is, the bone was cut. The second injury is on dorsal lateral aspect of upper one-third of left arm, and the third injury is on the medical aspect of the medical border of the upper half of the left scapula. It does not stand to reason that the injured would suffer a grievous injury like injury No. 1 himself. The other two injuries also could not be self inflicted. Further if a part of the prosecution case has not been held to be true, it cannot be said that the other part may not be proved and may not be held to be proved. In this regard the statement of injured Darshansingh coupled with the statement of Mst. Jal Kaur, corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. M. P. Agarwal and the first information report, are sufficient to hold the accused Maniram guilty of the offence under section 326 I. P. C. Simply because relations of the accused persons and witness Chandsingh were strained and inimical, it cannot be said that the accused persons were falsely implicated by the complainant Chand Singhs statement has not been believed by the learned Sessions Judge and Joginder Singh has also not been considered to be an eye-witness. 6. As regards the contention that the petitioner acted in exercise of his right of private defence, it may be stated that such a plea has not been taken by the accused. Rather he has stated that the complainant sustained injury No. 1 as a result of breaking of the bottles. The plea of the accused regarding injury on the finger, is not convincing. Rather he has stated that the complainant sustained injury No. 1 as a result of breaking of the bottles. The plea of the accused regarding injury on the finger, is not convincing. Moreover, the plea of right of private defence has not been taken by the petitioner and it is not borne out from the evidence on record. The learned Sessions Judge considering the probabilities has visualised as to how the occurrence had taken place. On that basis he observed that on refusal by the petitioner to have a drink to the complainant on deferred payment, the complainant got annoyed and broke the bottles and consequently the accused Maniram hit the complainant with a sharp weapon. In this connection it may be stated that there is no material on record on the basis of which it can be said that the complainant tried to continue to commit the mischief of breaking of bottles or doing any other harm. In the absence of such evidence it cannot be said that the right of private defence to the property was available. If the mischief was continuing, this right could be exercised. Thus, firstly, no such plea was taken by the accused secondly, such a plea is not borne out from the evidence on record so in my opinion, action of the accused cannot be justified. The petitioner, therefore, has been rightly convicted for the offences under sections 326 and 324 I. P. C. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next contended that the occurrence dates back to 29-8-1972. More than six years have elapsed. The petitioner had remained in custody first form 1-9-1972 to 7-9-1972. Thereafter, form 5-9-1974 to 15-3-1974, for a total period of 18 days. A lenient view in the matter of sentence may be taken and the sentence may be reduced to the period of his custody and he may further be sentenced to a reasonable amount of fine. In this connection it may be stated that the learned Sessions Judge took a lenient view in the matter of sentence, but since then much time is passed and as contended by the learned counsel now more than six years have passed. In my opinion the ends of justice would be served in this case if the petitioners sentence is reduced to the period of his custody and his fine may be increased to a sum of Rs. In my opinion the ends of justice would be served in this case if the petitioners sentence is reduced to the period of his custody and his fine may be increased to a sum of Rs. 300/- (Three hundred). This lenient view is being taken considering the extenuating circumstance as to the manner in which the occurrence seems to have taken place. 8. In the result, this revision petition is partly allowed. The convictions of the present petitioner Maniram under sections 326 and 324 I. P. C. are maintained, but on each count his sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period of his custody and he is further sentenced to a fine of Rs. 300/- (three hundred). In default of payment of fine he will undergo two monthsrigorous imprisonment. On payment of fine a sum of Rs. 200/- (two hundred) shall be paid to the complainant Darshansingh. One months time is allowed for payment of fine, as prayed by the learned eounsel for the petitioner, in the court of Sessions Judge, Ganganagar. The substantive sentence thus stands set off.Appeal partly allowed. *******