JUDGMENT 1. - In Criminal Case No. 340/85 Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Doongarpur by his judgment dated 18.11.1996 had convicted and sentenced all the accused petitioners under Sections 326 IPC or 326/34 IPC. An appeal was filed by the accused petitioners and their Criminal Appeal No. 39/96 was decided by Sessions Judge, Doongarpur on 12.7.1997 and accused petitioners Hallu, Mangla, & Hanja were convicted only under Section 323 IPC and they were given the benefit of probation under Section 4 of Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 for a period of two years on the condition that each of them will submit one bail and one personal bond of Rs. 3,000/- each. They are also ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 1,000/- each for the victims. Out of the amount of Rs. 3,000/-, Rs. 750/- each were to be given to each of the four injured persons. So far as accused petitioner Laxman is concerned, he was convicted by the said Appellate Court under Sections 326, & 323 IPC and he was ordered to suffer two years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- for Section 326 IPC. No separate sentence was passed against him for the offence under Section 323 IPC by the Appellate Court. 2. Now accused petitioners Hallu, Mangla and Hanja have filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 331/1997. In this petition they have prayed that no case is made out against them. So they have claimed acquittal from the charges of Section 323 IPC. Accused petitioner Laxman has filed Criminal Revision Petition No. 299/97 in which he has prayed that he should be acquitted from the charges under Section 326 and 323 IPC and in the alternative he has prayed that since he has already suffered jail for thirteen days during the trial so he wants that he should be released on undergone sentence because the matter has grown about 30 (thirty) years old. 3. In the aforesaid background, I have heard both sides. The learned Public Prosecutor has not seriously opposed the prayer of accused petitioner Laxman regarding release undergone sentence but has argued that no case of acquittal is made out in the matter. So he has prayed that revision petition of three accused petitioners who have already been granted the benefit of probation by the Appellate Court should be dismissed and the revision petition of accused petitioner Laxman only may be partly accepted. 4. So he has prayed that revision petition of three accused petitioners who have already been granted the benefit of probation by the Appellate Court should be dismissed and the revision petition of accused petitioner Laxman only may be partly accepted. 4. No doubt, the matter has grown 30 (thirty) years old, grievous injury by sharp weapon had allegedly been caused by accused Laxman to Soma. Soma has admitted that there was a dispute regarding possession of agriculture land between both sides and both the parties had tried to take the possession of other party's agriculture land and during that scuffle Laxman had beaten him with the help of an axe. There was a grievous injury which was bone deep on collar bone of Soma of the dimensions 13/4" x 3/4" with a fracture of chips. PW-11 Dr. Banmukand was examined in this regard but if we go through the judgment of the Appellate Court then we find that during sudden quarrel when one party was trying to take possession of agriculture land of another party, there was a sudden quarrel and during that quarrel exceeding the right of private defence, Laxman must have caused the grievous injury with a sharp weapon on the collarbone of Soma. This is a case of exceeding the right of private defence of property by accused Laxman. 5. I have also perused the statements of PW-1 Rama, PW-2 Havji, PW-3 Jeeva, PW-4 Ms. Sunny, PW-5 Ms. Hakri, PW-6 Ranjod, PW-7 Soma S/o Punja, PW-8 Soma S/o Churma, PW-9 Hakri, PW-10 Deeva, PW-11 Dr. Balmukand, PW-12 Deva, PW-13 Mada, and PW-14 Hakra. I have perused the record of the case also. After hearing both the parties, it can be said that prosecution has not come with a totally false case, slight exaggeration was traceable in the statement of witnesses and accordingly the Appellate Court has modified the conviction and sentence of the accused petitioners but since the matter is now 30 (thirty) years old some more liberal view is needed in favour of accused Laxman and he deserves to be let of on undergone sentence because he has already suffered 13 (thirteen) days in jail as stated by his learned counsel. 6. 6. Accordingly, the Revision Petition No. 331/97 filed by Hallu, Mangla and Hanja is hereby dismissed but the Criminal Revision Petition No. 299/97 filed by accused petitioner Laxman is partly accepted and while upholding his conviction under Sections 326 and 323 IPC he is hereby sentenced as follows; Section 326 IPC- ten days simple imprisonment, 323 IPC- three days simple imprisonment. He has already suffered thirteen days in jail, hence he need not be sent back to jail. His revision petition is partly accepted and judgment of the courts below are modified to that extent. Copy of this judgment be sent with the records of the courts below immediately.Revision No. 331/1997 dismissed/Revision No. 299/1997 partly allowed. *******