JUDGMENT 1. - This revision petition is directed against the judgement of Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, dated April 21, 1974, upholding the judgement of Munsiff-Magistrate, Bhilwara, dated March 24, 1972, whereby the learned Magistrate convicted the accused-petitioner under section 326, IPC., and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month. 2. The prosecution story in a nut-shell is that bullock of Bhawana (PW 3) strayed into the field of the accused-petitioner on October 7, 1967, at about 5 a.m. Bhawana (PW 3) went to take the bullock out of the field of the accused-petitioner. The accused-petitioner got infuriated and inflicted two axe injuries on the person of Bhawana (PW 3). First information report (Ex. P/4A) of this occurrence was lodged at the police station. Bhilwara, at 9 a.m. Dr. Mangal Singh (PW 6) clinically examined Bhawana (PW 3) and noticed two injuries on his person. The injury report is Ex. P/5. It is alleged that the accused-petitioner also sustained injury during the same occurrence. The first information report given by the accused-petitioner is Ex. D/4. The police after usual investigation submitted challan against the accused-petitioner in the Court of Munsiff-Magistrate, Bhilwara. The learned Magistrate after placing reliance on the statement of the injured Bhawana (PW 3), and the statement of Dr. Mangal Singh (PW 6), convicted the accused-petitioner under section 326 IPC, and sentenced him as mentioned above. Being aggrieved the accused-petitioner challenge his conviction and sentence before the Sessions Judge, Bhilwara, without any success. Hence this revision petition. 3. Looking to the preponderance of evidence on record and the concurrent finding of the two courts below the learned counsel for the accused petitioner after arguing the case for sometime ultimately conceded that there are no sufficient grounds to challenge the conviction of the accused-petitioner on merits as such it is not necessary for me to consider the prosecution evidence in detail and all the circumstances brought forth on the record by the prosecution to establish the guilt against the accused. 4. The only question canvassed before me is regarding the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon the accused-petitioner. It has been urged that the accused-petitioner and the injured belong to the same village. A compromise has taken place between them. 4. The only question canvassed before me is regarding the quantum of sentence to be imposed upon the accused-petitioner. It has been urged that the accused-petitioner and the injured belong to the same village. A compromise has taken place between them. Amicable relations between the parties have been restored and sending the accused-petitioner now after such a long time to jail to undergo the remaining period of sentence is likely to result in enduring feud between the parties. It has further been urged that the petitioner has remained in custody for a pretty long time. He is a cultivator by profession and has turned a new leaf in life after his release on bail. 5. The incident took place on October 7, 1967. The trial court convicted the accused on March 24, 3972, and on the same day he was taken into custody. The appeal preferred by the accused-petitioner was dismissed on April 21, 1972. The revision was filed on May 5, 1972, and the accused-petitioner was ordered to be released on bail the same day and was released from jail on May 6, 1972. Thus, he had remained in jail for 1 month and 14 days. The main purpose .of the sentence broadly stated is that the accused must realise that he has committed an act which is not only harmful to the society of which he forms as integral part but is also harmful to his own future, both as an individual and as a member of society. Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence. It is also designed to reform the offender and reclaim him as a law abiding citizen for the good of the society as a whole. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilised societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given somewhat greater importance. The injury for the infliction of which the accused-petitioner has been convicted is marginal on the point of being grievous or simple. The quarrel arose all of a sudden and the accused-petitioner also sustained injury in the course of the same occurrence. Only one injury was caused by the sharp side of the weapon by the accused. He has not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. The quarrel arose all of a sudden and the accused-petitioner also sustained injury in the course of the same occurrence. Only one injury was caused by the sharp side of the weapon by the accused. He has not acted in a cruel or unusual manner. In the facts and circumstances of the case all these factors can be regarded as extenuating circumstances. The parties, who belong to the same village, have settled their dispute and a compromise deed duly verified has been placed on the record. No doubt the offence for which the petitioner has been convicted is non-compoundable but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. Reference may be made to Ram Pujan and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 2418 . It is, in my opinion, not necessary to send the petitioner to jail again after the expiry of more then nine years of the commission of the offence. Nine years of agony and harassment of criminal proceedings itself is sufficient to inhibit the offender from repeating the offence. The petitioner is not a previous convict and he has turned a new leaf in life and is busy in useful work of agricultural production. 6. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the fact that a compromise has taken place between the parties, 1 think it would subserve the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him and in lieu of the reduction of imprisonment the sentence of fine is enhanced so that out of the amount of fine the complainant Bhawana can be suitably compensated. 7. I accordingly allow the revision in regard to the sentence of imprisonment imposed on the accused-petitioner and reduce the sentence of imprisonment Jo that already undergone by him and enhance the sentence of fine from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 500/- and direct that the amount of Rs. 300/- out of the-fine realised be paid over to the complainant by way of compensation. In default of payment of fine the petitioner will undergo simple imprisonment for three months. Two months' time is allowed to the accused-petitioner to deposit the fine in the trial court. 8. With the modification in the terms of sentence the revision stands dismissed. *******