Judgment Baldev Singh, J. 1. This revision petition has been filed by Sukhdev Singh against the impugned judgment dated October 27, 1992, passed by sh. M. L. Singal, the then Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide which the appeal filed by him against the judgment and sentence order dated september 28, 1991, was dismissed. He was convicted for the offence punishable under Sec.326 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the Code) for inflicting injury to Malkiat Singh and was sentenced to undergo R. I for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo R. I for two months by the trial Court. On appeal, his conviction was maintained. However, the sentence was reduced from one year to six months. The amount of fine remained the same. 2. The facts of the prosecution case are that on September 29, 1988, in the area of Village Badhni Kalan, the petitioner had a dispute over the flow of water with Malkiat Singh and Jasmer Singh. He had a spade (kahi) and he caused injury with kahi to Malkiat singh. The occurrence was witnessed by Jasmer Singh. Malkiat singh was taken to Rural Dispensary, Badhni Kalan, where he was medically examined on the same day. The matter was reported to the police by malkiat Singh and a criminal case under First Information Report no.106 dated October 03, 1988, was registered. The injury was later on got xrayed. 3. It was found grievous in nature. On completion of investigation, he was challaned under section 326 of the Code. Charge was framed against the petitioner under Sec.326 of the Code. He had not pleaded guilty to the charge and had claimed trial. 4. The prosecution, at the trial, had examined P. W.1 Dr. Naresh kumar, P. W.2 Malkiat Singh (injured), P. W.3 Jasmer Singh (eyewitness), p. W.4 Malkiat Singh son of Hardit Singh, P. W.5 Dr. S. P. Bansal, Radiologist, and P. W.6 Harjit Singh, Head Constable. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the conclusion of the prosecution evidence. He denied the prosecution allegations and had complained of his false implicity in the case. He had examined D. W.1 Surinder singh, Patwari, Halqa Badhni Kalan, in his defence. 5. Arguments of the Ld. Statement of the petitioner was recorded under Sec.313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure on the conclusion of the prosecution evidence. He denied the prosecution allegations and had complained of his false implicity in the case. He had examined D. W.1 Surinder singh, Patwari, Halqa Badhni Kalan, in his defence. 5. Arguments of the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner and of the assistant Advocate General, appearing for the respondent-State, were been heard and the evidence was scrutinised with their help. 6. The Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has not challenged the conviction. Hence, the impugned judgment regarding conviction of the petitioner under Sec.326 of the Code is maintained. The Ld. Counsel, however, submitted that lenient view be taken against the petitioner regarding sentence. Occurrence took place on August 29, 1988. 7. Since then, the petitioner is facing the agony of this case. He was aged 20 years at the time of occurrence. There is no other case against him since then and he has maintained good conduct in the society. He has already undergone incarceration for 36 days, from October 09, 1988 to october 18, 1988, from September 28, 1991 to October 08, 1991 and from October 27, 1992 to November 13, 1992. He is a poor farmer by profession. Statement of P. W.1 Dr. Naresh Kumar reveals that the injury was on non-vital part of the body of Malkiat Singh. Below is given the description of the injury:- "incised wound 3 cms x 0.5 cms bone deep. Wound was obliquely placed on lateral surface of right fore-arm. Lower end of wound was 2 cms from right wrist joint and upper end of wound was 3.5 cms from wrist joint. Fresh bleeding was present. " After radiological examination, the injury was declared grievous. 8 Taking into consideration all these circumstances, the sentence of the petitioner is reduced to already undergone. The fine and its default clause will remain the same. The petitioner would deposit the amount of fine, if not already done, in the trial Court at moga within a fortnight from today. The amount of fine, if recovered, would be paid to Malkiat Singh (injured ). Except for this modification in the sentence order, the revision petition is dismissed.