(1) THE respondents, who are father and son, were convicted by the trial court for offences under S. 326, 324 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. Their conviction was maintained in appeal by the court of Session. The High court, however, in revision, upset the convictions primarily on the ground that a right of private defence of property arose in favour of the respondents in justification of the crime. The State of Karnataka challenging the same is before us in appeal.

(2) THERE were two persons who were subjected to assault in the incident. One was Marigowda Public Witness 3, who on examination by Dr S.D. Eswara Public Witness 7, was found to be having two injuries. Injury 2, undeniably, was simple in nature though caused with a sharp-edged instrument. Injury I, however, was described as an incised clear-cut gaping wound measuring three inches in length, muscle deep one inch wide, situated obliquely from above downwards right to left, three inches above the right wrist joint in the front. Under that wound tender muscle nerve had been cut clearly. The doctor opined that the said injury was grievous in nature as the tender muscle nerve had been cut. It is this i