RAJESHWAR SINGH, J. The learned Assistant Sessions Judge convicted the revisionist under Section 325, I. P. C. He awarded two years rigorous impri sonment and also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000 or in default six months rigorous imprisonment to the accused. The revisionist went up in appeal and the first appellate court reduced the sentence of rigorous imprisonment to one year and fine to Rs. 500. Of course, in default of payment of fine a further imprisonment for six months was ordered. It is against this order that the present revision has been filed. 2. From seeing the record, it appears that on account of some dispute regarding property revisionist and some others dragged away. Smt. Ram Dulari when she was going to Kanpur. Her mother, the first informant, tried to intervene. Then she was also beaten. The medical report is to the eifect that there was facture of the fore-arm, there was huge swelling on the right hand and there was contusion on the right thigh. In this case the witnesses turned hostile except the complainant, Smt. Kaushalya, but her statement gets support from the injury report. She could not have manu facture on her body. Blood was recovered from the spot and the appellate court has found that the F. I. R. was not delayed. Taking all these circumstances in view, it appears that the revisionist committed an offence under Section 325, I. P. C. is correct. This is a finding of fact which does not call for interference. 3. Learned counsel for the revisionist argued that 8 years have passed after the occurrence and so now the revisionist be not sent to jail and instead of compensation may be awarded to the complainant or fine may be increased. 4. My hitch in accepting this request is that her daughter, which is said to have been dragged away, has nor still been traced. According to the complainant she might have been murdered. However, the difficulty is that the learned trial court has not believed that the daughter was taken away. It is a finding of fact against which the State did not file an appeal. According to the complainant she might have been murdered. However, the difficulty is that the learned trial court has not believed that the daughter was taken away. It is a finding of fact against which the State did not file an appeal. So, now I should proceed on the premises that the offence committed by the revisionist was only under Section 325, I. P. C. under this section the maximum sentence provide is 7 years and so the benefit of probation can be given to the revisionist. 5. The complainant is a woman. She is going; to gain nothing by awarding sentence to the revisionist. Of course, she has seriously suffered on account of the injuries including fracture and she also suffered incon venience of prosecuting the case. There is power to award compensation under Section 357, Cr. P. C. and Probation of First Offenders Act. If instead of sentencing the accused, who is not a previous offender, he is released on executing a personal bond of good conduct. It is very likely that he would improve himself and there would be some sort of binding on him not to repeat such offence against the complainant. The power to award compensa tion was intended to do something to reassure the victim that she is not forgotten under the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding properly to the crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes-a step forward in our criminal, judicial system. The Supreme Court has also recommended exercise of this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way. ,, Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and others, (1988) 4 SCC 551 . Any such measure which would give the victim succour is far better than a sentence by deterrence. In the above case the Supreme Court took the view that the payment, by way of compensation, must be reasonable and not merely an eye-wash. What is reasonable may depend upon the facts and circumsances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of the crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. The payment may also vary depending upon the facts of the case and circumstances of the accused. What is reasonable may depend upon the facts and circumsances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of the crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. The payment may also vary depending upon the facts of the case and circumstances of the accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation may also be given. The Supreme Court proceeded to say that the Court may enforce the order for payment of compensation by imposing sentence in default. Therefore, now the position is not that the victim would be left at the mercy of the accused for getting compensation or accused would be able to delay the matter. 6. If he does it and does not make payment within a specified period, he can be ordered to undergo sentence of imprisonment in default. 7. We have seen that the offence was committed in order to gain some advantage regarding land which did not belong to the revisionist, rather it was given to him on Batai. There was not the slightest justification for committing the offence. The complainant is a helpless woman. She suffered serious injury and the ordeal of prosecuting the case. The revisionist is a person who is engaged in agriculture and has thus an income of his own. Taking all these circumstances it appears to me that a compensation of Rs. 2,500 will be the just amount, but its payment must be ensured. 8. Therefore, I am of the view that it will be expedient and in the interest of justice to release the revisionist on probation of good conduct and to award Rs. 2,500 (Two thousand and five hundred) to the complainant Smt. Kaushilya, as compensation to be paid within a period of four months, failing which the revisionist may be directed to undergo the sentence awarded by the appellate court. It may be added that no previous conviction has been proved against the revisionist. 9. The conviction of the revisionist under Section 325, I. P. C. is main tained, but the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded by the appellate court are set aside at this stage. It may be added that no previous conviction has been proved against the revisionist. 9. The conviction of the revisionist under Section 325, I. P. C. is main tained, but the sentence of imprisonment and fine awarded by the appellate court are set aside at this stage. Instead of sentencing him at once to any punishment, I direct that he shall be released on his entering into a bond with two sureties to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of three years and in the meantime to keep the peace and to be of good behaviour. Trial court shall accept the bond only on being satisfied that the revisionist or his sureties have a fixed place of abode or a regular occupation within its jurisdiction. In order to ensure that the revisionist improves and does not commit such crimes again. I further direct that he shall be under supervision of the Probation Officer of District Unnao for three years. He shall report to the said Probation Officer once in every quarter and shall not charge his place of residence without previous intima tion to the Probation Officer. He shall also abstain from intoxicants. As the time accepting bonds, the trial shall explain these conditions to the revisionist and shall furnish copy of this supervision order to the revisionist, his sureties and the Probation Officer. 10. The revisionist shall furth r pay to Smt. Kaushalya, the complain ant a sum of Rs. 2,5ro (Two thousand and five hundred) within in period of four months from today. The mode of payment shall be that the revisionist shall get a demand draft of Rs. 2,500 payable at some Scheduled Bank in Unnao proper and hand over to the trial court within the aforesaid period of four months. The trial court shall summon Smt. Kaushalya and hand over the draft to her after due identification and explaining that it is com pensation and how the draft can be encashed by opening an account in some bank. If by that time Smt. Kaushalya is dead, the amount will go to her heirs. 11. Time of executing the bond by the revisionist shall be four months from today and shall be accepted after he has handed over the draft in accordance with the directions given errlier. If by that time Smt. Kaushalya is dead, the amount will go to her heirs. 11. Time of executing the bond by the revisionist shall be four months from today and shall be accepted after he has handed over the draft in accordance with the directions given errlier. If compensation is not paid within four months the revisionist would be called upon to serve out sentence as was awarded by the learned appellate court, but that will not wipe away the order for compensation. If compensation is paid as directed, the revisionist would executive the bond and abide by the terms and conditions thereof. Decided accordingly. .