K.S.J BHALLA, J.

(1.) - Petitioner Dharam Singh son of Jiwan Singh has filed this revision petition assailing the judgment dated 10-12-1984 of Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh by which his as well as that of his co-accused Karam Singhs conviction was confirmed.

(2.) Briefly stated the case of the prosecution was that Hardial Singh, Amrik Singh and ground to interfere with the same Harbans Singh were put into possession of the land situated within the revenue limits of village Dadu Majra, with regard to which a dispute between them on the one side and petitioner Dharam Singh and his brother Karam Singh on the other side was going on in the month of May, 1978. On 8.7. 1978 that land was being ploughed by them when petitioner Dharam Singh accompanied by Karam Singh, Gurdev Kaur, Harbans Kaur and Budh Kaur attacked them to oust them from the land and caused them injuries. Injured Han dial Singh, Amrik Singh and Harbans Singh were removed to General Hospital in Sector 10, Chandigarh and were medicolegally examined there. Information was communicated to the concerned police by the medical authorities leading to the visit of Sub-Inspector Dharam Singh (PW8) who recorded statement Exhibit PA of injured Hardial Singh on the basis of which present case was registered. Dharam Singh, Karam Singh and certain ladies on their side also received injuries and their plea was that land in question which was sown by them was ploughed by Hardial Singh etc. in their absence and when they were stopped, they caused injuries to them. The finding of the trial Court went in favour of the complainant party resulting into conviction of Dharam Singh and Karam Singh vide judgment dated 21-3-1983. Gurdev Kaur, Harbans Kaur and Budh Kaur, however, were acquitted giving benefit of the doubt, Dharam Singh was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 500/- under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code and Karam Singh was similarly sentenced under section 326 of the Indian Penal Code read with section 34 of the said Code with a direction that the defaulter shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months for non-payment of fine. Both of them were also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year each under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code with a direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(3.) Both Dharam Singh and Karam Singh preferred appeal against their convictions and sentences and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, vide his judgment dated 10-12-1984 affirmed their conviction, although taken, various circumstances into consideration, their sentences were reduced to the rising of the Court and a fine of Rs. 1000/- on the first count and rising of the Court with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the second count. It was further directed that in default of payment of his fine on the first count the defaulter shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and that of the second fine to rigorous imprisonment for three months. Against that judgment of the Appellate Court, present revision is directed. It has been filed by petitioner Dharam Singh alone and his brother Karam Singh does not appear to have joined him.

(4.) Oil perusal of the record and after hearing the parties, I see no incorrectness, illegality or impropriety, so far as the findings of the trail Court and Appellate Court are concerned. The maximum what can be said is that the Appellate Court erred towards leniency but taking into consideration the various circumstances pointed out by it as well as the fact that more than three years have passed since thereafter, I would not like to interfere in the matter of sentence either. It is common case of the parties that occurrence took place in the land in dispute with regard to which both the parties were disputing since before and that at the time of the occurrence complainant party was in physical possession thereof in the sense that according to both the versions at the relevant time the land was being ploughed by Hardial Singh, Amrik Singh and Harbans Singh According to the prosecution they were in lawful possession thereof; whereas according to the accused they started ploughing forcibly in their absence. With regard to the injuries of each-other both the parties have tried to suppress facts as is usual. None of the two convicted accused has stated in his statement that any injury was caused by any of them. Similar is the situation with regard to the prosecution witnesses, although Amrik Singh (PW 2) has admitted during the cross-examination that they were also alarmed with Lathis at the time of occurrence and they also hurled Lathi blows in self defence.

(5.) In the given situation the only important question required to be determined was as to who played the role of aggression. That matter to my mind stands clinched on the record through statement of Rattan Singh (P.W. 5) Naib Tehsildar. He has stated that in the year 1978 he was posted as Qanugo at U.T. Chandigarh, that on 15.5.1978 he received warrant of possession for delivering possession, to Amar Singh and Han Singh and that possession was actually delivered to them. He has also mentioned that the area of the land of which the possession was to be delivered from Dharam Singh and Karam Singh was 9 Kanals and 13 Marias. The witness has further added that report was entered in the Roznamcha in this regard and copy of that report is Exhibit PB. This shows that physical possession was delivered to the complainant party on 17.5.78. In cross- examination the witness has further stated that on 17.10.1979 and 22.9.1979 possession was again delivered to the accused in accordance with the order passed by Sub-judge First Class, Chandlgarh. This further confirms the delivery of possession of the land in favour of the complainant party before the occurrence. Unless the possession had been delivered to them, question of restoration of possession did not arise and when the accused party itself has brought on the record in cross-examination with regard to restoration, of possession which took place subsequent to the occurrence, it in a way admits the delivery of the possession the complainant party at the relevant time. Petitioner Dharam Singh in this case, though accused, has also gone into the witness-box as D.W. 1. It is significant to note that while in the witness-box he could not deny this fact that possession of the land in question was delivered to the complainant party by Qanugo Rattan Singh. He has carried the question stating that he did not know whether Rattan Singh Qanungo delivered possession of this land on 17.5.1978 to Amar Singh and Han Singh in accordance with the order of the Financial Commissioner. V.T. Chandigarh. Thus, at the time of occurrence i.e. on 8.7.1978, the complainant party wall in lawful possession of the land in question and if they were disturbed by the accused party while ploughing that land at that time, it were only the accused who played the role of aggression. Therefore the injuries caused to them, even if they were caused by the members of the complainant party, naturally were caused in exercise of the right or private defence of property. Accused taking the law into their own hands was not justified and they could not have gone to the land for taking possession otherwise than in due course of law. In this situation of the matter, findings of the Court below with regard to conviction of Dharam Singh and Karam Singh cannot be said to be unwarranted. Benefit of possible false roping in his already been allowed to them and the women folk were acquitted.

(6.) For the foregoing reasons, I see no merit in this revision petition and the same, accordingly, is dismissed.