Judgment :- The petitioner now stands convicted for offences under Sections 307 and 447, I.P.C. For the former he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of 6 months and for the latter he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. On 12-1-1987 the petitioner insulted P.W. 3 in the bus, when she was returning from the college, which matter was promptly reported by her to her brothers. Thereupon P.Ws. 1 and 2 along with brother Rajan went to the house of the petitioner at about 8 p.m. to inform the mother of the petitioner about his conduct and the petitioner's mother undertook to see that the petitioner will not indulge in such activities in future. At about 8.30 p.m. on the same day, according to the prosecution, the petitioner came in front of the house of P.Ws. 1 to 3 and called out P.W. 2 and when he came out the petitioner asked P.W. 2 as to why he went and informed his mother about his earlier behaviour towards P.W. 3. Thereafter, it is said, that the petitioner took out a knife and stabbed P.W. 2 on the chest and when P.W. 2 moved back a little he sustained a stab on his abdomen. On seeing this, P.Ws. 1 and 3, along with another brother Sajan, came to his help and thereafter, the victim P.W. 2, was taken to a hospital at Aluva from where he was referred to the Medical Trust Hospital at Ernakulam. An emergent operation was performed by P.W. 8, the doctor. P.W. 2 was hospitalised for 22 days and he was unable to follow his ordinary pursuits. P.W. 1 laid Ext.P1, the first information statement, with P.W. 10 who registered a crime and investigation was taken up by P.W. 11. The accused produced M.O. 1 knife before P.W. 12 which was under Ext.P5. The final report was filed by P.W. 12 after the completion of investigation. 3. P.W. 1 laid Ext.P1, the first information statement, with P.W. 10 who registered a crime and investigation was taken up by P.W. 11. The accused produced M.O. 1 knife before P.W. 12 which was under Ext.P5. The final report was filed by P.W. 12 after the completion of investigation. 3. When questioned, the petitioner stated, that while he was returning from the church on the date of occurrence at about 8.30 p.m. he was caught hold of by P.W. 1 and 2 and their brother Sajan, and that he was forcibly removed to the courtyard where he was assaulted. According to him, to escape from their clutches, he swung the knife and ran away from the scene. In short, he admits that he wielded a knife at P.Ws. 1 and 2. 4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is not arguing the case on merits but would only make his submission in the question of sentence. According to counsel, the occurrence had taken place in the year 1987 and at that time the petitioner was only 28 years of age. He lost his father at the age of 13 and was brought up by the widowed mother, who is old now. It was further submitted that if the petitioner is sentenced to imprisonment, it will cause hardship to the petitioner as well as to his mother and also to his two young children. I have heard the Public Prosecutor on this aspect. 5. I have perused the evidence of the doctor P.W. 8 and also the evidence of other witnesses. In Hari Kishan and State of Haryana v. Sukhbir Singh (AIR 1988 SC 2127), the apex Court held that Section 357 of the Cr.P.C. is an important provision. In the view of the Supreme Court, Courts have seldom invoked it though it empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgments of conviction. It was further stated by the Hon'ble Judges, that the Court may order the accused to pay some amount, by way of compensation, to the victim who has suffered by the action of the accused. The ordering of Court to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power has intended to do something to re-assure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. The ordering of Court to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power has intended to do something to re-assure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. In the view of the Supreme Court, it is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as of reconciling the victim with the offender and it is a constructive approach to crimes. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submitted, that as the victim has suffered a serious injury on the abdomen and had to undergo operation in the Medical Trust Hospital, petitioner is prepared to compensate the victim substantially. I am also of the view that if the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is set aside, and instead if he is directed to pay an amount of fine, it will serve the ends of justice on the facts and circumstances of this case. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is prepared to pay a heavy fine, and I feel that the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner can be set aside, if it ultimately results in payment of compensation to the victim also. As the petitioner is prepared to pay a heavy fine, I feel that ends of justice will be served, if a substantial portion of the said amount is paid, as compensation to the victim, P.W. 2 in this case. Petitioner is willing to pay a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the view that the sentence of imprisonment of five years imposed upon the petitioner can be modified into one of fine and in lieu of the sentence of imprisonment petitioner is now directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1 lakh within two days from today. On the circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment is set aside. Conviction against the petitioner under S. 447 is confirmed. But, the sentence of two months imprisonment imposed upon the petitioner is set aside, as in my view there need not be a separate sentence against the petitioner for the said offence in this case. If the fine of Rs. 1 lakh is paid, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- will be paid to P.W. 2 Suresh as compensation. In default of payment of fine of Rs. If the fine of Rs. 1 lakh is paid, a sum of Rs. 80,000/- will be paid to P.W. 2 Suresh as compensation. In default of payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh, petitioner will undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. With this modification in sentence, this revision petition is dismissed. Order accordingly.