JUDGMENT 1. - The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhilwara convicted the petitioner under section 326 IPC by his judgment dated 13.9.1993 in Regular Cr. Case No. 126/84. The petitioner preferred an appeal which was decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2, Bhilwara, who maintained the conviction and the sentence awarded to the petitioner vide judgment dated 28.6.1999 in Cr. Appeal No. 261/96. The petitioner was sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment and Rs. 4,000/- fine, in default to undergo 5 months rigorous imprisonment. Against the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner has preferred this revision petition. 2. The prosecution case is that the petitioner was beating his wife at 9.00 p.m. on 19.5.1984. The injured Devi Lal went to save her from beating. The petitioner gave a blow by knife on the ear and cut the part of it. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. I have also perused the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts below. The learned counsel for the petitioner has concentrated his arguments only on the quantum of sentence. Therefore, I do not deem it necessary to narrate and discuss the entire prosecution evidence. On perusing the statements of the witnesses, I do not find any illegality or any other error in the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. Therefore, the finding of conviction does not require interference. I agree with the findings that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the offence under section 326 IPC against the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the conviction of the petitioner under section 326 IPC is hereby maintained. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the incident happened in the year 1984. The petitioner has suffered protracted criminal proceedings. He is in Jail since 28.6.1999. He has also remained in custody during investigation and trial from 30.5.1984 to 11.6.1984. Thus, the petitioner has already suffered imprisonment for more than two months. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence of imprisonment may be reduced to already undergone and adequate compensation may be awarded to the heirs of Devi Lal who is now dead. It is also submitted that at the time of the incident the petitioner's age was about 18 years. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this contention. It is also submitted that at the time of the incident the petitioner's age was about 18 years. The learned Public Prosecutor has opposed this contention. However, he submitted that if the substantive sentence is reduced, adequate compensation should be awarded to heirs of Devi Lal who sustained grievous injury and part of his ear was cut. 5. I have considered the rival submissions. In the over all facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it just and proper to reduce the substantive sentence to the period already undergone, but it will be appropriate to award compensation of a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to the heirs of Devi Lal. 6. In the result, this petition is partly allowed. The conviction of the petitioner-Gyan Mal alias Gyana under section 326 IPC under the impugned judgment is hereby affirmed, but the substantive sentence of two years is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine imposed on the petitioner for offence under section 3261PC is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. The petitioner is sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 15,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for one year. On deposit of the fine, Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to the heirs of Devi Lal as compensation by giving notice to them.Revision partly allowed. *******