JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 08-05-2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonamura, West Tripura in Case No. S.T. 46(WT/S) of 2005 whereby he convicted the accused-appellant of having committed offences punishable under section 323 read with section 34 and under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) along with three other accused. The three other accused were directed to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in default thereof, to suffer simple imprisonment for a period three months for commission of offence punishable under section 323 read with section 34 of IPC, whereas the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 (seven) years and also sentenced to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 (two) years for commission of offence punishable under section 326 of IPC. 2. Briefly stated, the prosecution story is that on 03-02-2005, one Jahir Uddin (PW-6), who is brother of Babul Miah (PW-7), found that one of his cattle which had been missing for a few days was in the house of the accused. Jahir Uddin therefore confronted the accused as to how his cattle was in the house of the accused. The accused got very angry at this and asked Jahir Uddin as to why the accused was being called a cattle lifter. He allegedly threatened Jahir Uddin with dire consequences. 3. Thereafter, Jahir Uddin had climbed a date tree to pluck the fruit. At that time, all the accused including the appellant came to the spot and gave some blows of the 'lathi' to Jahir Uddin who fell down. It is further the case of the prosecution that Maleque Miah (PW-2) then informed PW-7 that his brother Jahir Uddin had been beaten and PW-7 was also advised to take Jahir Uddin to the hospital. Babul Miah (PW-7) then proceeded towards the hospital along with Jahir Uddin. It appears that in the meanwhile another scuffle took place and a lot of people gathered and there was fighting between both sides and in this fighting, a blow of the 'dao' was given by the accused to Babul Miah and the blow was so severe that it severed the hand of Babul Miah from the wrist. It appears that in the meanwhile another scuffle took place and a lot of people gathered and there was fighting between both sides and in this fighting, a blow of the 'dao' was given by the accused to Babul Miah and the blow was so severe that it severed the hand of Babul Miah from the wrist. On this basis, ejahar was filed by informant Tajul Islam and thereafter, FIR was registered and the case was tried. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. After trial, he has been convicted as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 4. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that this is a clear-cut case where fighting has taken place between two groups of people and in the melee, some blows were exchanged and it cannot be said with certainty that the blow which led to the severance of the hand of Babul Miah was given by the appellant. He also submits that there is evidence on record to show that the appellant Ismile Miah was also grievously and seriously injured and a clear-cut case of right of private defence has also been made out and, therefore, he submits that the conviction be set aside. In the alternative, he submits that due to the extenuating circumstances, the sentence be modified. 5. I have gone through the record and I find that Babul Miah in no uncertain terms has stated that he was given the blow with a 'dao' by the appellant-accused and this blow severed his hand at the wrist. The issue is whether the accused was exercising his right of private defence or not. To understand this defence, we must take into consideration the fact that earlier also the same day, an altercation had taken place between Jahir Uddin, brother of Babul Miah, and the accused and his brothers and relatives. In the said altercation, Jahir Uddin was beaten up. Thereafter, people informed Babul Miah that his brother Jahir Uddin had been beaten up by the accused. There could have been a reason for Babul Miah to have also attacked the present appellant-accused because of the previous altercation. 6. However, what I find from the record is that all the witnesses state that Babul Miah decided to take his brother to hospital since his brother Jahir Uddin was seriously injured. There could have been a reason for Babul Miah to have also attacked the present appellant-accused because of the previous altercation. 6. However, what I find from the record is that all the witnesses state that Babul Miah decided to take his brother to hospital since his brother Jahir Uddin was seriously injured. There is no evidence or material on record to show that Babul Miah and his brother attacked Ismile or his friends. Another attack took place where Babul Miah suffered a serious injury. No doubt, Smt. Kulsum Bibi (PW-13), wife of Babul Miah, has stated that Ismile also suffered bleeding injuries, but this by itself would not be sufficient to show that Babul Miah and Jahir Uddin had attacked the appellant. A person can exercise his right of private defence only when he is the defender and somebody else is the aggressor. There is no evidence worth the name on the record of the file to show that Babul Miah had attacked Ismile. No doctor has been examined to show what were the injuries which the appellant suffered. It may also be a case where the appellant may have suffered injuries at the hand of the villagers after the occurrence had taken place. Be that as it may, in the absence of any evidence to show that Babul Miah had attacked the present appellant, there is no right to exercise private defence. It is the appellant who was armed with a sharp edged weapon and, therefore, it is apparent that he came prepared to cause grievous injury. Therefore, I uphold the conviction under section 326 of the IPC. 7. Having held so, the next question is what is the sentence to be awarded. The occurrence took place in February, 2005. More than 9(nine) years have elapsed. The sentence of 7(seven) years imposed, in my view, is very harsh. No doubt, the injury caused is very grievous, but at the same time one cannot lose sight of the fact that there were charges and counter charges. Even if the appellant be the aggressor, it appears that the injuries were caused because of a feud between two groups. 8. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal on merits, I reduce the substantive sentence from 7(seven) years rigorous imprisonment to 3 (three) years rigorous imprisonment but the fine is increased from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. Even if the appellant be the aggressor, it appears that the injuries were caused because of a feud between two groups. 8. Therefore, while dismissing the appeal on merits, I reduce the substantive sentence from 7(seven) years rigorous imprisonment to 3 (three) years rigorous imprisonment but the fine is increased from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- (rupees twenty thousand) and in default of payment of fine, the appellant shall undergo imprisonment for a period of 1(one) year. In case of deposit of fine, the same shall be paid to the victim Babul Miah. The fine to be deposited in the trial Court within a period of 4(four) months from today. 9. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 10. Send down the lower court records forthwith.