JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 31, 1976 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikais whereby he convicted the accused-appellant under Section 304 Part II I.P.C. and sentenced him to five years' rigorous imprisonment. However, the other accused Mst. Tijudi tried along with the accused-appellant was acquitted of all the charges framed against her. 2. The prosecution story as disclosed at the trial is that accused-appellant Rameshwar and the deceased Khema were real brothers. They were both living together with their mother PW 3 Mst. Roopa. After the death of their father some dispute arose between them regarding the partition of the ancestral land and on the date of the occurrence i.e. on October 22, 1975 a verbal altercation took place between them regarding distribution of the crop. The accused got infuriated. He drew out a bamboo stick from the roof of the house and inflicted blows on the person of Khema (since deceased). As a result of the head injury Khema fell down. In the mean time accused Rameshwar threw PW 2 Mst. Patasi on the ground. It has further been alleged that thereafter accused inflicted some injuries on the person of others. On the same day Khema (since deceased ) went to the Sarpanch and narrated him the entire story. After coming from the house of the sarpanch he assumed his usual work and took his buffalo for making them to drink water. Thereafter he came to his house, fell down on a cot and ultimately succumbed to his injuries. A first information report of this occurrence was lodged at the Police Station, Losal on October 23, 1975. The police after usual investigation submitted a challan against the two accused in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sikar and the accused were ultimately tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sikar. Out of the two accused tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused-appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 part II I.P.C. and he was sentenced as mentioned above. 3. The convicted accused has come up in appeal to this Court. 4. The controversy in this case has been reduced to a narrow compass. Out of the two accused tried by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, the accused-appellant was found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 304 part II I.P.C. and he was sentenced as mentioned above. 3. The convicted accused has come up in appeal to this Court. 4. The controversy in this case has been reduced to a narrow compass. Looking to the preponderance of evidence on record the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has conceded that there are no sufficient grounds to challenge the fact that the accused-appellant inflicted injuries on the person of Khema (since deceased) at the time and place alleged by the prosecution. 5. I have looked into the relevant portion of the record myself and have gone through the judgment of the trial court. PW 2 Mst. Patasi widow of the deceased has been cross-examined at length, but nothing has appeared in her statement on the basis of which the veracity of her statement can be doubted. Her statement is further corroborated by the statement of PW 13 Prabhu Dayal, who stated that the deceased just after the occurrence went to him and told that his brother accused Rameshwar inflicted injuries on his (Khema's) head and other parts of the body. From the statement of Dr. B. P. Jangid PW 12 it has been proved that Khema (since deceased) sustained six injuries out of injuries No. 1 and 5 were on the head and under injury No. 5 he detected communicated depressed fracture of the temporal and parietal bones of the skull as a result of which Khema died of shock and intracranial haemorrhage. 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the accused-appellant has vehemently urged that the family of PW 3 Mst. Roopa consisted of her two sons and their wives, out of whom Khema met homicidal death and the other is convicted. Only ladies have remained in the family. They are cultivators by profession. In the absence of a male member in the family they are facing number of troubles. The other influential persons in the village are trying to grab their land. The accused-appellant has already undergone a sentence of near about two years and it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 7. The other influential persons in the village are trying to grab their land. The accused-appellant has already undergone a sentence of near about two years and it would be in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by him. 7. It is an admitted fact that there was no previous enmity between the accused-appellant and the deceased. The occurrence was the offshoot of a trifle incident regarding division of crop. Verbal altercations took place between the 'parties. There were remonstrance and counter remonstrance. The trial Court has also held that the occurrence was a sudden affair. The accused and the deceased are members of the same family. 8. Now remains the question of sentence. Sentencing is an important stage in the process of administration of criminal justice, as important as the adjudication of guilt and it cannot be in relegated to a subsidiary position. 9. It is always a matter of great anxiety to a Court to impose appropriate punishment in the criminal case. A proper sentence is amalgamation of many factors such as nature of the offence, the circumstances extenuating or aggravating of the offence. The prospect for rehabilitation of the offender, the possibility of return of the offender to normal life in the community must be kept in view while fixing the term of sentence. The true purpose of final treatment is to take into consideration social defence' redemption of the convict from the life of crime and the satisfaction of the victim and the community that justice has been done in the case. The offence for which he has been convicted was not pre-meditated. It was the result of a trifling dispute regarding distribution of crop. There was remonstrance and counter remonstrance. The occurrence was a sudden affair. 10. I find considerable merit in the submission that taking advantage of the absence of male member of the family influential persons are trying to grab the land and if the accused would be detained further for remaining term of sentence, there is every likelihood that after his release he may find no land to cultivate. Chances of rehabilitation bleak and may again return to the life of crime. 11. Chances of rehabilitation bleak and may again return to the life of crime. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances I think it would subserve the interest of justice if the sentence imposed is reduced to two years and three months and in lieu of the reduction of sentence of imprisonment a sentence of fine of Rs. 1000/- is imposed. 12. I accordingly partly allow the appeal as indicated above. 13. It is, however, made clear that the accused-appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. and the period of detention undergone during investigation, inquiry or trial before the date of conviction shall be set off against the term of sentence awarded to him. *******