HARI SWARUP,J. - (1.) LEARNED Government Advocate has received notice. Both the counsel for the appli­cant and the State are agreed that the revision be finally decided today.
(2.) THE applicant has been convicted under section 324 I. P. C. He was sentenced to one year's R. I. and a fine of Rs. 200 by the Trial court. The appellate court has reduced the sentence of imprisonment to six months' R. I. and fine to Rs. 100. The prosecution case, in brief, was that there were adjoining fields belon­ging to the complainant and the accused. Both the parties were grazing their cattle and there was an exchange of hot words. The complainant asked the accused Ram Suhawan to drive away the cattle from the field which the complainant claimed to be his. The accused protested and ultimately thrust a Selha (spear) into the abdomen of the complainant. On the arrival of the witnesses the accused ran away. First Information Report was lodged and the injury of the complainant was examined by Dr. S. G. Misra the same evening. He found a stab wound 1/2" x 1/4" x abdominal cavity deep on the right side of abdomen, and prepared the injury report Ex. Ka 5. The trial court after considering the evidence came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. In appeal the court below had reconsidered the evidence and has arrived at the same conclusion. No infirmity has been pointed out to enable me to hold that the courts below have committed any error in convicting the accused.
(3.) LEARNED counsel contended that the accused had the right of defence of property and the injury was caused in the exercise of that right. In support of this contention he has laid emphasis on the observations in the judgment of the appellate court to the following effect :- "It would also be evident that there was no demarcation at the spot and both the parties appear to have been under some misunder­standing as to the extent of their respective portions at the spot. It is this fact which has led to this occurrence." ;