JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against judgment dated 29.1.1982 of the Sessions Judge, Kota convicting the appellant under Section 326, IPC and sentencing him to one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 100/- (in default, further one month's 2. Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to assailt the judgment under appeal on merits and confined his submissions to the quantum of sentence to a term already undergone on the ground that a compromise had already been filed on 25.1.1983 which is on record; and that the learned trial court did not at all consider the compromise otherwise he could have been acquitted and in either case, a lenient view could have been taken by the trial court in the matter of sentence. Placing reliance upon the decision in AIR 1988 SC p. 2111, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that while maintaining the conviction, the impugned sentence may be reduced for the period already undergone by him. The appellant is said to have remained in jail for one month. 3. Having considered the points raised, in my view, looking to the evidence on record proved by the prosecution, the learned trial court was justified in holding the appellant guilty of the offence under Section 326, IPC. And, his conviction is maintained. 4. As regards, sentence, looking to the fact that the compromise had been filed, a lenient view can be taken having benefited by the enlightments derived from the decision in AIR 1988 SC 2111 and the trial court could have passed a shorter sentence. That apart, I find nothing on record to show that it is impossible to reform and rehabilitate the appellant. The occurrence is of the year 1981. Through out the period of trial and pendente appeal, the appellant remained on bail and the appellant has been leading a settled life; the parties are close relatives and thereby they had arrived at a compromise in the year 1983. In case the appellant is sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence then definitely,-relations between the parties may result in strain relationship and the purpose of filing the compromise shall be frustrated. In case the appellant is sent to jail to serve out the remaining sentence then definitely,-relations between the parties may result in strain relationship and the purpose of filing the compromise shall be frustrated. Looking to the character, age and antecedents of the appellant and extenuating circumstances, I feel it just and proper to reduce the sentence of the appellant and the ends of justice will meet if the appellant's sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. 5. I accordingly, allow this appeal in part and while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, I reduce his sentence of one year's R.I. to a period of imprisonment already undergone by him. He need not surrender. He is on bail. However, I maintain the sentence of fine. To the above extent, the judgment under appeal is modified. The record be sent back forthwith.Appeal Allowed In Part. *******