JUDGMENT 1. - While maintaining the conviction of the accused petitioner Maga under section 326 IPC, the learned Sessions Judge, Balotra reduced the sentence from four years to three years R I. The sentence of fine of Rs. 2000/- or in default of payment of which to further suffer Six months R.I. was maintained. The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal of Maga and Bhaga accused persons who were convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate under section 323 IPC. and each of them was sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, or in default of payment of which to suffer one month's simple imprisonment. 2. The case of the prosecution is that on July 31, 1976 Sona Ram son of Motaram PW 1 was ploughing his field situated in Mozagari, tehsil Barmer at about sunset. It is alleged that accused appellants alongwith others came there and started cutting trees. When he asked them not to do so, it is alleged that accused appellant Maga who was armed with a knife gave an injury with it on his left ear as a result of which the pinna to the lobule was cut. The other two accused petitioners also gave lathi blows to him. 3. The injuries of Sonaram PW 1 were examined by Dr. Madan Lal Calla PW 9 who on examining found that there was a cut wound on the left ear extending from upper part of the pinna to the lobule whole ear has been chopped off. The injury was 1.7" x 1", whole ear cut off remants of the base to lobule only left part. The injury was grievous and was caused by sharp weapon. Sonaram had also two injuries by blunt weapon on his person. 4. The accused persons were tried by the learned Magistrate and each of them pleaded not guilty to the charges and claimed to be tried. After the closure of the prosecution evidence, each of them was examined under section 313 Cr. PC to explain the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. Maga accused denied to have taken part in the occurrence and further denied that he had a knife and chopped off the ear of Sonaram He also denied to have given information and to have got recovered the knife. The other accused also stand on a bare plea of denial. Maga accused denied to have taken part in the occurrence and further denied that he had a knife and chopped off the ear of Sonaram He also denied to have given information and to have got recovered the knife. The other accused also stand on a bare plea of denial. The accused persons examined Pahara in defence. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the case. The contention of the learned advocate is that the case of the prosecution that the injury on the left ear of Sona Ram was caused by a knife does not appear to be correct. According to him the injury was caused when accused Maga had bitten the left ear of the Sona Ram. 6. As I shall presently show that the finding of the two courts below that the injury was caused by a knife by accused Maga is based on sufficient material. In the statement of Sona Ram it is clearly stated that Maga was armed with a knife and when he started cutting the trees and he asked him not to do so, he was felled on the ground and there after his ear was chopped off by the accused Maga with the knife. The statement of Sonaram was corroborated by the statement of Madanlal Calla PW 9 who has clearly stated that the injury No. 1 could not be as a result of teeth bite. Thus he excludes the possibility of the case set up by the accused. I am of the opinion that the accused petitioner Maga has been rightly convicted under section 326 IPC. So far as the other two are concerned, they were convicted by the learned trial court under section 323 IPC and their conviction and sentence have been maintained by the learned appellate court. In the facts and circumstances of the case when the occurrence took place all of a sudden on the matter when the accused were cutting the trees, I am of the opinion that in view of section 361 Cr. PC the case of these two accused should have been dealt under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The sentence so far as accused Maga is concerned, is bit excessive. 7. PC the case of these two accused should have been dealt under section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act. The sentence so far as accused Maga is concerned, is bit excessive. 7. In the result, I will allow the revision petition in part, while maintaining the conviction of accused Maga under section 325 IPC, I sentence him to undergo two years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/-, or in default of payment of which he shall further suffer two months' R.I. 8. The conviction of two other accused appellants Bhaga and Veerma under section 323 IPC is maintained but looking to the nature of the offence, circumstances of the case and the fact that there is no previous conviction on record against the two accused persons, I hereby direct that instead of sentencing these two accused persons at once to any punishment, they are directed to be released on probation provided each of them enter into a bond in the sum of Rs. 2000/- and a surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court to appear and receive the sentence whenever called upon during the period of one year and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour. I hereby allow two months time to these accused to furnish the bonds in the trial court. Fine, if deposited by these two accused persons shall be refunded to them. 9. Accused Maga shall surrender immediately in the trial court to undergo the modified sentence failing which the trial court shall take steps to get the accused Maga apprehended so that he undergo the sentence awarded or any remaining part thereof.Revision partly allowed. *******