JUDGMENT : Pradeep Nandrajog, J 18.09.1999 was the date of the incident. The two warrior groups comprised Birdaram, Raghuveer Singh, Mahender, Krishan, Dayaram and Sardara, as group one; and Ram Singh, Bhagwana, Durjan, Dev Karan and Dhan Singh as the other. Cross complaints were lodged. There is unanimity of the version in the two cross complaints that Durjan was ploughing the field when Birdaram told him not to do so. Durjan insisted that he would plough the fields. A fight ensued in which Durjan's brother joined. Similarly the family members of Birdaram also joined. 2. From the group comprising Durjan, following sustained injuries as noted in the tabular form:- S. No. Injured Persons No. of injuries 1. Kampuri 1. Wound Parieto Occipital region of left Head 2. Bhagwana 1. Bruise on Right Wrist. 2. Pain on Right Shoulder. 3. Bruise on Left leg 4. Wound on Little finger of Right hand 5. Wound on Ring Finger of Right hand. 3. Durjan 1. Swelling on Left Shoulder. 2. Wound on Right leg 3. Bruise on Left Leg 4. Swelling on Foot of Right Let 5. Swelling on Thumb of Left Leg. 4. Dev Karan 1. Bruise on Left Shoulder & Wrist 2. Bruise on Right Eye. 3. Bruise on Right Shoulder. 4. Bruise on Right Leg 5. Incised Wound on Mid Fronto Parietal region (Advised for CT Scan but report not available) 3. Of the members comprising Birdaram group following sustained injuries:- S. No. Injured Persons No. of injuries 1. Birdha Ram 1. Swelling on top of Head 2. Swelling on Right Shoulder. 3. Contusion upper left shoulder. 4. Abrasion on upper left shoulder. 5. Pain in chest 2. Krishna 1. Middle & Index Finger of Left Hand. 3. Jagriti 1. No presence of Incisor teeth. 2. Swelling of Skull 3. Abrasion on Middle of Nose 4. Dayaram 1. Abrasion on Thumb on Left Hand. 2. Swelling on Whole Left Hand. 3. Swelling on Right Ear of upper part. 4. Abrasion on Right Ear Backside. 5. Mahendra 1. Contusion on Left Shoulder. 2. Swelling on Wrist of Right Hand. 3. Irritation in Eyes 6. Raghuveer 1. Lacerated wound on Right Side of Head. 2. Abrasion on Finger 3. Abrasion on Right Index Finger 4. 2. Swelling on Whole Left Hand. 3. Swelling on Right Ear of upper part. 4. Abrasion on Right Ear Backside. 5. Mahendra 1. Contusion on Left Shoulder. 2. Swelling on Wrist of Right Hand. 3. Irritation in Eyes 6. Raghuveer 1. Lacerated wound on Right Side of Head. 2. Abrasion on Finger 3. Abrasion on Right Index Finger 4. Vide two separate orders dated February 6, 2003, convicting Birdaram group for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325 and 326 IPC, the maximum sentence imposed is to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. For other offences the sentences ranged between three months to two years. Birdaram and his group are the appellants in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.234/2003. Budha Ram is the petitioner of S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.287/2003 and is aggrieved by the opposite group being acquitted. 5. With reference to the injuries suffered by the members of the two groups, learned counsel for Birdaram group urges that keeping in view that more injuries were sustained by Birdaram group, the finding returned while convicting Birdaram group that they were the aggressors is liable to be set aside and for same reason acquittal of the opposite group for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 323, 324, 325 and 336 IPC is incorrect. 6. From a perusal of the testimony of the witnesses on either side, the common version which has emerged is that Durjan was ploughing the field when Birdaram told him not to do so. The learned trial Judge has duly noted said fact as also the fact that there was civil litigation between the parties and order for status quo had been passed and thus there is an observation that Durjan was not morally justified in doing what he did. But as regards Birdaram and his group the finding correctly arrived at is that if Durjan was ploughing the field inspite of status quo orders passed, they should not have taken law in their hands. What has happened is obvious. Birdaram took offence when he saw Durjan ploughing the field. A verbal altercation ensued. Family members of Birdaram joined. So did the family members of Durjan. Injuries were caused to members of both the groups. But, it is not a case of a free fight. What has happened is obvious. Birdaram took offence when he saw Durjan ploughing the field. A verbal altercation ensued. Family members of Birdaram joined. So did the family members of Durjan. Injuries were caused to members of both the groups. But, it is not a case of a free fight. The origin can be traced to Birdaram trying to stop Durjan from ploughing the field and thus things spinning out of control with respect to the fields which were being ploughed. The dispute pertains to the share of the two groups in the land which appears to have been half each but at a settlement Birdaram's group came to be recorded as the share owners. 7. In view of the facts noted hereinabove in brief by me, the finding returned that Birdaram and his group were the aggressors is a correct finding and that Durjan and his group were justified in using reasonable force to defend is also justified. 8. Thus, there is no merit in S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No.287/2003, which is dismissed. 9. But as regards S.B. Criminal Appeal No.234/2003, I find that merely because the fourth injury suffered by Bhagwana, being a wound on little finger of right hand, the first injury suffered by Durjan, being swelling on left shoulder, and the first and fifth suffered by Dev Karan, being bruise on left shoulder and wrist and an incised wound on mid fronto parietal region, were stated by the doctors as grievous, the learned Judge has proceeded to convict Birdaram group members for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. 10. Grievous hurt is defined under Section 320 of the Penal Code as under:- "320. Grievous hurt.- The following kinds of hurt only are designated as "grievous"- First.- Emasculation. Secondly.- Permanent privation of the sight of either eye. Thirdly.- Permanent privation of the hearing of either ear, Fourthly.- Privation of any member or joint. Fifthly.- Destruction or permanent impairing of the powers of any member or joint. Sixthly.- Permanent disfiguration of the head or face. Seventhly.- Fracture of dislocation of a bone or tooth. Eightly.- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits." 11. None of the injuries listed as grievous by the doctors are designated as grievous under Section 320 of the Penal Code. Eightly.- Any hurt which endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be during the space of twenty days in severe bodily pain, or unable to follow his ordinary pursuits." 11. None of the injuries listed as grievous by the doctors are designated as grievous under Section 320 of the Penal Code. There is no evidence that any injured was hospitalized or suffered severe bodily pain for a period of 20 days. 12. Under the circumstances, maintaining the conviction of the appellants in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.234/2003 for all offences except for the offence punishable under Section 326 IPC, I acquit them for having committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. 13. Keeping in view that Durjan ought not to have ploughed the field and is responsible for what triggered a fight but in law Birdaram and his group would be responsible for their criminal acts, I am of the opinion that for the offences for which the appellants are being convicted, they should be granted probation. 14. S.B. Criminal Appeal No.234/2003 is accordingly disposed of acquitting the appellants of the charge of having committed an offence punishable under Section 326 IPC. Maintaining the sentences for the other offences, I suspend the sentence requiring the appellants to furnish a bond in sum of 5,000/- with one surety in the like amount ? within 2 months to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court to maintain peace and harmony and not to commit any offence for a period of one year.