JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has been convicted under section 307 IPC and sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further rigorous imprisonment for 9 months and out of the amount of Rs. 2,000/- a sum of Rs. 1,000/- is to be paid to the injured Nirmal Kumar, by the learned Sessions Judge Bundi. 2. It would not be necessary to discuss the case in detail as the learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged his conviction but has only made his submissions with regard to the matter of sentence. 3. The prosecution case in brief is that a report was lodged at police station Kapran District Bundi on August 11, 1980, by Shri Pushp Chand Jain, Medical Officer, Kapran wherein he referred to the police station a statement recorded by him of injured Nirmal Kumar. It was alleged that injured Nirmal Kumar was sitting on the shop of one Chhotu Mistri PW 2 PW 7 Nihil Chand came and told him for taking sweets. Nihal Chand had taken Bhang. Both of them came on the shop of Shankar Panwala Both of them took betel from the shop and moved forward. They had gone 40 paces then two accused Bhagwan Singh appellant and Saleem met them. Bhagwan Singh appellant told Nihal Kumar that he had done DADAGIRI in the affair of Mamaji and he would not escape now. Bhagwan Singh was not influenced by the request made by Nirmal Kumar with folded hands. Bhagwan Singh took out a knife from his pocket and inflicted a blow on the right ribs of Nirmal Kumar. Nirmal Kumar cried and tried to run away. Girraj PW 9 came on the spot and saw Nirmal injured by a knife blow in his chest. He took him to the hospital Dr. Pushpa Cband Jain PW 1 examined the injured Nirmal Kumar who was lying in an unconscious state and thereafter he sent the report Ex. PI to the Police Station. The injured was then removed to Kota. Dr. He took him to the hospital Dr. Pushpa Cband Jain PW 1 examined the injured Nirmal Kumar who was lying in an unconscious state and thereafter he sent the report Ex. PI to the Police Station. The injured was then removed to Kota. Dr. Y.K. Sharma examined the injured and found one injury in the following manner; "Stab wound (incised) on right side of chest 3/4" x 1/4" cavity deep in 9th inter costal space mid axillary." The learned Sessions Judge, who tried the case placed reliance on the statements of Nirmal Kumar PW 2, Nihal Chand PW 7 and Girraj PW 9 and convicted the appellant under Section 307 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge acquitted the accused Saleem. The learned counsel for the appellant has not challenged the conviction of the appellant and I have also gone through the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge and I do not find any reason to take a different view. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is thus maintained. 4. As regards the sentence it is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that only one injury was inflicted be the appellant An application was submitted by injured Nirmal Kumar before the trial Court that he had no grievance now. The appellant at the time of the commission of the offence was 18 years of age. It is a first offence committed any him and his entire family is dependent on him. The appellant has remained in Jail for a period of about 7 months as he was taken into custody on 5th September, 1980 and in these circumstances he should be released on the sentence already undergone by him. 5. It is no doubt true that the injury inflicted by the appellant was of a grave nature, but only one injury was inflicted by the appellant. The appellant is a young man of 20 to 22 years of age as mentioned by the learned Sessions Judge It is a first offence committed by him and the injured, who is a neighbour of the appellant has no grievance against the appellant. Thus, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper in the interest of justice that the sentence already undergone by the appellant would be sufficient. 6. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. Thus, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and proper in the interest of justice that the sentence already undergone by the appellant would be sufficient. 6. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 307 IPC is maintained and the sentence of 4 years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine of Rs. 2,000/- is maintained but in default of payment of fine, the term of 9 months rigorous imprisonment is also reduced to six months rigorous imprisonment. An amount of Rs 1,000/- shall be paid to the injured out of the amount of fine A period of one month is given to the appellant to deposit the amount of fine failing which the learned Sessions Judge Bundi would take appropriate steps for the execution of the sentence awarded to the appellant in default of payment of fine.Appeal partly allowed. *******