JUDGMENT 1. - Accused petitioner preferred this revision petition against the judgment dated 26.5.99 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jaipur City who is dealing with the cases of communal riots and hence called as Special Judge of the Communal Riots Cases. He maintained the conviction of the accused petitioner under Section 326, IPC passed by the learned Additional- Chief Judicial Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City on 1.7.97 who sentenced the petitioner for five years' simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, and in default, to further undergo ten days' simple imprisonment. 2. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State. 3. Briefly stated, one Abdul Rauf reported at Police Station Sadar, Jaipur on 23.10.89 that he was living at House No. 238, Barodia Basti, Jaipur. At about 10.00 p.m. his goat entered in the house of Noor Mohammed. Thereupon, Noor Mohammed abused him. The complainant apologised but even then Noor Mohammed continued to hurl abuses. Then Abdul Saleem also came and also used same language. In the meantime, Saleem who is the son of Noor Mohammed came out of the house with a cutting weapon and threatened to kill the complainant. lie then attacked with the sharp weapon and caused four injuries. Then Saleem ran towards police station. It was Abdul Rasheed, Constable who took him to hospital. At the time of occurrence, Salma Bano, Sattar, Altaf Mohammed, and Jameel were present who saw the occurrence. A case under Section 307, IPC was registered, investigated and ultimately challaned, but the learned Sessions Judge, afer committal of the case found that the case did not travel beyond Section 326, IPC, therefore, he sent back the case to the Magistrate under Section 228 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Aiccused petitioner was tried for the said offence. The prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses in support of its case. Then accused petitioner was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. who also produced one defence witness, namely DW Lallu Lal. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner for offence under Section 326, IPC as stated above. On appeal, the same has been maintained. 4. Then accused petitioner was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. who also produced one defence witness, namely DW Lallu Lal. The learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, after hearing both the parties, convicted and sentenced the accused petitioner for offence under Section 326, IPC as stated above. On appeal, the same has been maintained. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner was not able to point out any glaring feature in this case as required in State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri, JT 1999 (1) SC 456=I (1999) CCR 92 (SC)=II (1999) SLT 83. I have myself gone through the evidence and I am of the view that no such glaring feature is available from which it may appear that injustice has been caused to accused petitioner which may entitle him for acquittal. Therefore, I hereby maintain the finding of guilt. 5. Then, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the sentence of five years in this case is excessive looking to the fact that the occurrence took place in October, 1989 and by now a period of 11 years has passed. He submitted that accused petitioner had already undergone a lot of mental tension during trial, appeal and in this revision and that his father suffers from eye disease and that one of his eyes was removed and that the power of his left eye is plus 10. It has also been submitted that the mothe of accused petitioner is also ill and he himself has three children and the wife to maintain. Medical Certificates of the treatment of the father and mother have been submitted. I have considered the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I find that the incident occurred suddenly because a goat had entered in the house of the father of accused. Accused petitioner when he saw that his father was being abused by complainant came out with rage and inflicted blows by sharp weapon, i.e. 'Chura' on the complainant. Accused petitioner was not satisfied by inflicting only one injury but he constantly inflicted four injuries by a sharp weapon. The injured was taken to hospital and was operated. Injury No. 1 which is an incised wound on the chest was such which falls within the definition of grievous injury as per statement of the doctor as it endangered the life of the complainant. The injured was taken to hospital and was operated. Injury No. 1 which is an incised wound on the chest was such which falls within the definition of grievous injury as per statement of the doctor as it endangered the life of the complainant. No cross-examination was made on this point on behalf of the accused during the trial. In these circumstances, the injury is definitely grievous but looking to the facts and circumstances that the quarrel took place suddenly and a period of 11 years has passed and the petitioner has already undergone a sentence of one and half years, I am of the view that in this case, the sentence may be reduced to two years but the fine should be increased. 6. Consequently, the revision petition is partly allowed. The conviction of accused petitioner under Section 326, IPC is maintained but the sentence of five years' is reduced to the period of two years' imprisonment but the fine is increased from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. In case of default of fine, accused petitioner shall undergo three months' simple imprisonment. The fine if realised be given to the injured as compensation.Revision Petition partly allowed. *******