JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant was charged for the offence of Section 307, IPC, which is said to have been committed on 12-9-79. The F I.R. was lodged by one, Gulabchand brother of the appellant. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence hearing the parties, held the appellant guilty of the offence of Section 307, IPC, and sentenced him to undergo 4 years' R.I with a fine of Rs. 100/- (in default, 3 months' R.I.). Hence this appeal. 2. Shri Biri Singh, at the very threshold while not assailing the findings arrived at by the court below on merits, has not argued on the points urged in the memo of appeal, except that, of reducing the sentence to the term of already undergone Shri Biri Singh on behalf of the appellant submitted that it is a case where the altercation took place on a sudden provocation in between two real brothers, namely, injured-complainant and the appellant at the time when the appellant had gone to draw water from the well allegedly in the joint ownership of the parties. The cate of the appellant is that on the day of incident, the appellant went to draw water from the well but the injured informant refused him to take water, which resulted into an altercation. 3. Shri Biri Singh then urged that both tHe brothers (appellant & complainant) have now arrived at a compromise; that at present, their relations are cordial and affectionate to each other; and that in case the appeal is dismissed the appellant will have to undergo the impugned sentence thereby the relations between the brothers may strain. Therefore, Shri Biri Singh urged that while maintaining the conviction the impugned sentence may be reduced to the period already undergone apart from enhancing the fine amount appropriately ordering to give the same to the injured as compensation. 4. learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the injured sustained grievous injuries with a lethal weapon and virtually, the appellant is not entitled to any concession. However, the learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute the relationship in between the appellant and the injured being real brothers and having cordial relations and having been arrived to a compromise. 5. learned Public Prosecutor on the other hand submitted that the injured sustained grievous injuries with a lethal weapon and virtually, the appellant is not entitled to any concession. However, the learned Public Prosecutor did not dispute the relationship in between the appellant and the injured being real brothers and having cordial relations and having been arrived to a compromise. 5. Having considered the points raised and goes through the entire record admittedly the prosecution case is that the well in question was in joint ownership of the appellant and the injured (Gulabchand) and both are residents of village Amrit Khedi (P.S. Aklera) and on the day of incident the appellant was not allowed to draw water from the well for irrigating his field. On September 11, 1979, the injured allegedly told the appellant that he would irrigate his field next day by drawing water out from the well upon which, the appellant allegedly asked him not to do so and threatened him of dire consequences. On September 12, 1989 at about 8 O' clock in the morning when Gulab Chand was allegedly going to well, the appellant did not allow him to draw water and it was the only cause of altercation. 6. After conviction the appellant has been released on bail and he has now been leading a settled life. In case of non-reduction of sentence even after keeping in view the compromise said to have been arrived in between the injured and the accused-appellant who are real brothers, the petitioner-accused will have to face great hardship in addition to great hardship to his family members. And, the relations being cordial and affectionate to each others in between the parties on account of compromise may result adversely in strained relations, if the appellant is sent to jail after about 11 years of the incident particularly when the compromise has been arrived at and the appellant has already undergone the sentence for more than one year. Therefore having benefited by the enlightens derived from the decision in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1988 SC 2111 ) , in my opinion, looking to the accompanying circumstances of the present case, to meet the ends of justice, it will be just and proper to reduce the sentence for the period already undergone by him and to enhance the quantum of fine from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1500/-. 7. 500/- to Rs. 1500/-. 7. This appeal is, therefore, partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction under Section 307 IPC, the appellant passed by the trial court is reduced from four years to the period already undergone by him during the inquiry, trial and pendency of the appeal. However, the sentence of fine is enhanced from Rs. 500/- to 1500/-. The appellant is directed to deposit the fine within six months. If fine is so deposited the trial court is directed to pay Rs. 1000/- to Gulab Chand (injured). Upon failure on the part of the appellant to deposite the enhanced fine within six months, the trial Court shall issue arrest warrant against the appellant to serve out the remaining part of sentence passed by the trial Court under impugned judgment. To the above extent, the impugned judgment is modified. The record be sent back forthwith.Appeal partly allowed. *******