Judgment J. R. CHOPRA, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition has been filed against the appellate Judgment of the learned Additional Session Judge, Sriganganagar dated 25. 4. 1978 whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge has maintained the conviction and sentence of the accused-petitioner recorded under section 326 IPC by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar vide his Judgment dated 18. 1. 1978. The petitioner was sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default, to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this revision briefly stated are that accused Ramchandra is the son of complainant Mst. Jamna. The husband of Mst. Jamna and the father of accused-petitioner Ramchandra i. e. Bhagwanaram died 7-8 years before the occurrence. Bhagwanaram left behind 27 bighas of land. It is alleged that out of the 27 bighas of land, 10 big has of the land has been sold by Mst. Jamna to somebody. According to the complainant, she has been cultivating this remaining 17 bighas of land through some Thekedars. She has alleged that on 6. 2. 1975 at about 4 p. m. she went to the field alongwith her daughter Reshma. It is alleged that accused Ramchandra, his wife Mst. Meera and one Ganguram came there. Ganguram gave her beating by a fist and Mst. Meera gave beating to her by lathi and accused Ramchandra inflicted an injury on her leg by a Kaasi, which is a sharp-edged weapon. Mst. Jamaa went to the field to take the fire wood and also to plough the field. She went and reported the matter to the police. After investigation, the case against the accused petitioner and his two companions was challaned in the court of the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar. The learned Magistrate after recording the evidence of both the parties came to the conclusion that the disputed field was in possession of accused Ramchandra and, therefore, the accused-petitioner Ramchandra has been acquitted of the offence under actions 447 and 323/34 IPC. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the accused-petitioner has been held guilty of the offence under section 326 IPC and has been sentenced as aforesaid. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has maintained his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Hence this revision. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the accused-petitioner has been held guilty of the offence under section 326 IPC and has been sentenced as aforesaid. On appeal, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has maintained his conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate. Hence this revision. ( 3 ) I have heard Mr. I. S. Champawat, learned counsel for the accused-petitioner and Dr. S. S. Bhandawat, learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have carefully gone through the record of the case. Mr. I. S. Champawat, learned counsel appearing for the accused-petitioner has submitted that actually this case rests on the evidence of a single witness. It is beyond doubt that a son will beat his mother. He has further stated that Mst. Reshma has not supported her mother and the testimony of the other witnesses is also of no value because that is the hearsay evidence based on what was told to them by Mst. Jamna and therefore, the accused-petitioner deserves acquittal. ( 4 ) I have considered the submission made at that bar. In this case, it has been the consistent version of Mst. Jamna that i. e. was accused Ramchandra who gave a blow with Kassi on her leg when she went to the field. Her X-ray examination shows that the Injury was grievous. Thus, it is clear that this Injury has been inflicted to Mst. Jamna by accused Ramchandra and it was a grievous injury by a sharp weapon. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, the matter does not end here. It has been stated by Mst. Jamna that after, the death of her husband, there was a dispute about the possession of the land between her and accused Ramchandra and a Panchayat was called and the Panchayat distributed the land 1/2 : 1/2. However, she has admitted in her cross-examination that 10 bighas of land came to her share and that has been sold by her. P. W. 3 Chetanram has admitted in his cross-examination that a Panchayat took place about the possession of this land and to bighas or land was given to Mst. Jamna and the remaining 17 bighas of land was given to accused Ramchandra It was accused Ramchandra who was cultivating that 17 bighas of land. He was even residing in the Ghani which was existing on that land. Jamna and the remaining 17 bighas of land was given to accused Ramchandra It was accused Ramchandra who was cultivating that 17 bighas of land. He was even residing in the Ghani which was existing on that land. The same fact has been admitted by P. W. 4 Govindram. It, therefore, appears that is the partition effected by the good offices of the village Panchayat, 10 bighas of land was given to Mst. Jamna and the remaining 17 bighas of land was given to accused Ramchandra and that land was being cultivated by him by residing in the Dhani which was existing on that field. Mst. Jamna has stated that she went to the field on that day to plough the field and she also took out the wood from that field. Mst. Reshma has stated that she and her mother went to the field of her brother where he was ploughing the field. Her mother told his brother not to plough the field but his brother did not stop. This witness has been declared hostile and it is quite possible that in order to help her brother. She has refrained from alleging anything against her brother. I have already held that this Injury on the left leg of Mst. Jamna was inflicted by accused Ramchandra. Be that as it may it is clear that Mst. Jamna went to the field with an intention to plough it and also to take out the fire wood from there. When the field was not in her possession it amounts to criminal trespass with an intention to annoy him. Her intention further was to collect the fire wood from there which means that she also wanted to commit theft. From the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, it is clear that that field was in possession of accused Ramchandra and he was residing in the Dhani situated in that field and so, he had every right to protect his property in exercise of his right of private defence of property. He has only inflicted one injury with a Kassi and that too on the left leg of Mst. Jamna. He has not repeated the blow. Section 99 IPC provides that the right of private defence should be exercised reasonably. I have already observed that only one injury by a Kassi was inflicted to Mst. He has only inflicted one injury with a Kassi and that too on the left leg of Mst. Jamna. He has not repeated the blow. Section 99 IPC provides that the right of private defence should be exercised reasonably. I have already observed that only one injury by a Kassi was inflicted to Mst. Jamna and that cannot be considered to be the excessive exercise of the right of private defence of property and so, accused petitioner Ramchandra was well within his right to inflict this injury in the exercise of his right of private defence of property and therefore, the accused-petitioner deserves acquittal from the offence under section 326 IPC. Probably, this aspect of the matter was not gone into by the courts below. The learned Magistrate acquitted the accused petitioner of the offence under section 447 IPC by holding that the land in dispute was in possession of accused Ramchandra but still the benefit of the right of private defence of the property was no extended to him. Although, the accused has not claimed any right of private defence of the property but it is very much available to him on the basis of the evidence that has been produced by the prosecution and, therefore, the courts below have erred in convicting the accused-petitioner of the offence under section 326 IPC. ( 6 ) I, therefore, accept this revision. Set aside the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioner Ramchandra recorded under section 326, IPC by the learned Munsif and Judicial Magistrate, Sriganganagar and affirmed by the learned Addi. Sessions Judge. Sriganganagar and acquit hi m of the offence under section 326 IPC. The accused-petitioner Ramchandra is already on ball. He need not surrender to his bail bonds. His bail bonds shall stand discharged.