JUDGMENT 1. - The appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Sessions Judge, Merta dated September 27, 1978 by which the appellant was convicted under section 307, IPC and was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of the payment of fine to further undergo six months' like imprisonment. 2. I have heard Mr. M.L. Garg learned counsel for the appellant and the leaned Public Prosecutor Miss Sumitra Sankhla. 3. Mr. Garg appearing for the appellant does not challenge the conviction of the appellant under section 307, IPC. His only submission is that the appellant was a young boy of 21/22 years of age at the time of the incident which took place on April, 1977. He has already remained in detention for one year six months and three days. The offence was committed in 1977 and the appeal in now being disposed of in 1986. It was submitted that looking to this long interval, it will not be proper to re-send the accused to jail. It was, on the other hand, contended by he learned Public Prosecutor that the offence is a serious one and no compassion should be shown to the accused-appellant, I have taken the respective submissions into consideration. 4. As per-estimate of he age recorded by the trial Judge, the accused was of 24 years in age, that means he was nearly 22/23 years in age at the time of the incident. He was arrested on 5.4.1977 and remained thereafter under detention till he was released on 7.10.1978 by this Court. He has, thus, remained in custody for one year six months and three days. The offence was committed in 1977 and the appeal is now being disposed of in 1986. Looking to the long interval of eight years in between the pronouncement of the judgment by the trial court and the disposal of the appeal, it would not be proper to re-send the appellant to jail. It would not be improper to reduce his sentence to the period already undergone by him, maintaining the sentence of fine. 5. In the result, the appeal of accused Muzafar Hussain is partly allowed. His conviction under section 307, IPC is maintained, but the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is maintained. 5. In the result, the appeal of accused Muzafar Hussain is partly allowed. His conviction under section 307, IPC is maintained, but the sentence of three years' rigorous imprisonment awarded to him is reduced to the period already undergone by him. The sentence of fine is maintained. The appellant is allowed one month's time to deposit the fine in the trial Court, failing which the learned Sessions Judge will proceed against him in accordance with law. If the amount of fine is realised, a sum of Rs. 500/- will be paid as compensation to the injured-victim Hanif.Appeal partly allowed. *******