JUDGMENT 1. - Under challenge in this appeal is a judgment dated January 29, 1983 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ajmer whereby the accused appellants were convicted and sentenced as under : Lala @ Kishan Lal Under Section 307, IPC to undergo three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/-. Under Sections 324/34 to undergo one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/-. Amarch and Under Sections 307 134, IPC to undergo three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/-. Under Sections 324/34 to undergo one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/-. Under Section 324, [PC to undergo one year R.I. Mangilal Under Section 307/34, [PC to undergo three years R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/-. Under Sections 324/34 to undergo one year R.I. and fine of Rs. 250/-. Under Section 324, IPC to undergo three months S.I. 2. According to PW 4 Dr. R.N. Mathur, Bhagchand, the injured sustained the following injuries : (i) Incised wound spindle shape 1 /a" x ⅔" on the left hypochondrium. (ii) Incised wound spindle shape (transverse) 11h" x ⅔" on the left nipple. (iii) Incised wound spindle shape (vertical) 3/4" x ⅕" x 1/10" on the lateral angle of the mouth left side. (iv) Incised wound 1'/i" x'/a" x bone deep on the left frontal region. (v) Lacerated wound 3/4" x'h" x 1/10" on the left frontal region. (vi) Lacerated wound 3/4" x 1h" x 1/10" on the left eye brow. (vii) Lacerated wound 13/4" x'h" x ⅕" on the posterior surface of right elbow. Above noted injury No. (i) was found dangerous in nature and the PW 4 Dr. R.N. Mathur, was of view that the said injury if could not have been timely treated medically, could have proved fatal. This injury has been attributed to accused appellant Lala by PW 2 Bhag Chand, who narrated in his statement that Mangi Lal caught hold of him and Lala inflicted two blows from 'Gupti' (dragger) on his stomach and chest. Amar Chand inflicted three blows from 'Katar' on waist and one on mouth. Mangilal inflicted lathi blow on the left side of his forehead. 3. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant restricted their arguments to the propriety of sentence. It was canvassed that accused appellants Lala and Amarchand were of 22 and 18 years of age where as Mangilal was 58 years of age at the time of the incident. Mangilal inflicted lathi blow on the left side of his forehead. 3. Learned Counsel for the accused appellant restricted their arguments to the propriety of sentence. It was canvassed that accused appellants Lala and Amarchand were of 22 and 18 years of age where as Mangilal was 58 years of age at the time of the incident. Appellant Lala was arrested on June 7,1982 and his sentence was suspended on February 16, 1983. Thus he remained in custody for a period of 8 months and 10 days. Accused appellants Amar Chand and Mangilal were remained in custody from June 7, 1982 to june 15,1982, they have been detained on August 26, 1997 and at present they are in the judicial custody. It was canvassed that looking to the age of the accused appellants and the period of confinement the punishment awarded to them may be reduced. Reliance was placed on Khatanmal V. State of Raj., 1989 RCC 219 , Damoder Prasad v. State of Rajasthan, 1989 RCC 105 ; and Kajod v. State of Rajasthan, 1996 RCC 456 . 4. Mr. Goyal, learned Public Prosecutor for the State contended that if sentence is reduced fine may be enhanced in the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions and carefully perused the record. 6. Law is a great help in seeing that the good rules of ethics are actually carried out, meant for the benefit humanity. If law is to be respected it must be rooted in the sense of doing justice and justice does not involve the obstinate and stereotype following of rules and procedure but involves being supplemented by grace 'equity and kindness' and doing of something good and useful. 7. Victimology, as a separate discipline deals with the study of the problems of victims of crimes and their right to claim compensation from the offender. The necessity of paying compensation to the victims of crime has also engaged the attention of the United Nations. The 7th United Nations Congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, came out with a declaration of basic principles of justice of victims of crime which was later adopted by the U.N. General Assembly. 8. The necessity of paying compensation to the victims of crime has also engaged the attention of the United Nations. The 7th United Nations Congress on Prevention of Crime and Treatment of Offenders, came out with a declaration of basic principles of justice of victims of crime which was later adopted by the U.N. General Assembly. 8. Be that as it may, a Criminal Court in India can also award compensation to victim of crime under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short the Code). 9. While considering the significance of Section 357 of the Code their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Hari Kishan v. Sukhbir Singh, AIR 1988 SC 2127 , said : ".......It is an important provision, but Courts have seldom invoked it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It may be noted that this power of Court to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to re- assure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well as reconciling the victim with the offender...... We therefore recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way." 10. Now I proceed to scan the statement of PW 4 Dr. R.N. Mathur. In the medical injury report (Ex. P 8) of injured Bhag Chand, it was mentioned that injury No. 1 of the injured was dangerous in nature. Other injuries were shown as simple in nature. Though in his statement Dr. R.N. Mathur stated that injury if could not have timely treated medically could have proved fatal but in the medical examination report of the injured no such opinion was expressed even the general condition of the injured was not mentioned. According to the medical report the injuries were 6 hours old and at the time of examination of the injuries, according to Doctor, all the four wounds were bleeding. According to the medical report the injuries were 6 hours old and at the time of examination of the injuries, according to Doctor, all the four wounds were bleeding. The Doctor admitted that constant bleeding for six hours may result in unconsciousness of the injured but as the bleeding speed of the injured was not so high, the injured was conscious. It goes to show that the injured was conscious after six hours of the injury sustained by him without getting any treatment. So the opinion of the Doctor that the injury if could not have timely treated medically could have proved fatal, does not inspire confidence and it cannot be believed. The Doctor in the medical report did only mention that injury No. 1 was 'dangerous' but the medical report did not say that injury No.1 was dangerous to life. On the face of this statement of Doctor it is dear that he was not of definite opinion that injury No. 1 was dangerous to life. 11. The prime ingredient of Section 307, IPC is that the accused must have the intention or knowledge that by that act which he is going to do he may be held guilty of committing attempt to murder. The act of the accused must be dangerous to life. The statement of Dr. R.N. Mathur does not lead to conclusion that the injury No. l sustained by Bhagchand was such so as to cause death of Bhagch and. I therefore do not agree with the learned Trial Court that a case under Section 307, IPC has been made out from the evidence on the record as case that is made out is under Section 326, IPC. 12. The incident had taken place in the year 1982 and since then the accused-appellants have been facing trial. Accused Lala remained in jail fora period of eight months and 10 days whereas accused Amarch and Mangilal remained in custody for a period of four months and 28 days. Accused Lala and Amar Chand were of 22 and 18 years of age at the time of incident whereas accused Mangilal was of 58 years. Accused Lala remained in jail fora period of eight months and 10 days whereas accused Amarch and Mangilal remained in custody for a period of four months and 28 days. Accused Lala and Amar Chand were of 22 and 18 years of age at the time of incident whereas accused Mangilal was of 58 years. In Naib Singly v. State of Punjab, 1986 Cr.L.R. SC 468 , which was a case under Sections 326 and 324, IPC and accused was sentenced to one year imprisonment by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed as under : "The appellant is a teacher in Government school. The circumstances brought out by the prosecution evidence show that he acted in the heat of the moment. Looking to the fact that the incident occurred on 22nd April, 1973 some 13 years back, we do not think it desirable to send the appellant back to jail. We accordingly reduce the sentence to rigorous imprisonment awarded by the High Court to imprisonment till rising of, the Court and to a fine of Rs. 5,000/-and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months." 13. In the case on hand, it is evident from record that none of the accused committed any, offence prior to this. They are from the weaker section of the society and facing trial since 1982 and spent sufficient time in confinement. 14. In view of facts and circumstances of the case as mentioned here in above and in the light of observations made in Naib Singh's case (supra) by the Apex Court, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of Lala under Section 307, IPC and Amar Chand and Mangilal under Sections 307/ 34, IPC is set aside. They, instead are convicted under Sections 326, IPC and 326/34, IPC respectively. Their conviction under other sections is maintained, but if they are sentenced to imprisonment already undergone and fine, ends of justice would be met. 15. Invoking the provisions under Section 357, Cr.P.C. I further direct that each of the accused appellant shall also be liable to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (ten thousand) within one month from today which shall be deposited in this Court. If the fine is not deposited within this period each of the accused appellants shall have to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. 10,000/- (ten thousand) within one month from today which shall be deposited in this Court. If the fine is not deposited within this period each of the accused appellants shall have to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment. Out of the fine so realised from the accused persons, the injured Bhagch and shall be paid Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) by way of compensation who has suffered a lot by the action of accused person. The case now shall be listed before Deputy Registrar (Judicial) on February 16, 1998 who shall check whether the fine is deposited by the accused or not. The papers thereafter shall be placed before this Court on February 18, 1998.Appeals partly allowed. *******