JUDGMENT 1. - Accused Onkarlal has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated 20.7.83 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Udaipur convicting him under section 307 IPC. He was sentenced to 3 years R.l. and a fine of Rs. 100, in default six months R.l. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 21.10.82 the Medical Officer Sarada sent a communication to the police about the admission of Prakash Chandra in the Hospital, who had injuries on his person. The letter was taken by Roda at the Police Station Sarada where on the basis of this letter a case under section 307 IPC was registered. During investigation, the police obtained the injury report of Prakash Chandra, inspected the site, interrogated the witnesses and arrested the accused. On completion of the investigation, a challan was filed against the appellant which was committed to the Court of Sessions. To a charge under section 307 IPC framed against the appellant, he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined PW 1 Prakash Chandra, PW 2 Mukutlal, PW 3 Dayaram, PW 4 Roda and PW 5 Kal Singh. Accused in his statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. denied accusation. He, however, admitted that he had caused injury to Prakash Chandra by a 'Ranpi' (an instrument used by cobblers). His case was that he had to cause injury in exercise of the right of self defence. He examined DW 1 Pyarelal and DW 2 Rameshlal and himself entered into the witness box as DW 3. The learned Additional Session held that the accused had caused on injury by 'Ranpi' to Prakash Chand with intention to cause his death. He further held that the accused did not have a right of private defence to cause such injury to Prakash. He, therefore, convicted and sentenced him as stated above. 3. No pressing the plea of self defence, Mr. Mathur raised two contentions : One, assuming the prosecution case to be true the offence does not travel beyond Section 308 IPC. In support of this contention he cited the case of Pappu v. State 1982 RCC 167 . Two, the occurrence had taken place more than 16 years before and the appellant has with great difficulty obtained job in the Indian Oil Corporation on temporary basis and if he is sent behind bars, it will be very hard on his family. In support of this contention he cited the case of Pappu v. State 1982 RCC 167 . Two, the occurrence had taken place more than 16 years before and the appellant has with great difficulty obtained job in the Indian Oil Corporation on temporary basis and if he is sent behind bars, it will be very hard on his family. He submitted that the appellant is in a position to pay compensation to the injured as may be directed by this Court. 4. The learned Public Prosecutor supported the judgment of the trial court. 5. The facts of the case indicate that the occurrence had taken place all of a sudden without premeditation. The accused caused the injury after he was forced to make payment for the damage of the cycle. It is not the prosecution case that before the date of occurrence there was exchange of hot words between the parties, and therefore, the accused had taken 'Ranpi' with him. As a matter of fact the accused, being cobbler, might be having 'Ranpi' with him. It cannot be said that he had gone to the place of occurrence after preparing himself for causing injury. 6. In the case of Pappu v. State (supra) the facts were that the accused had inflicted one knife injury on the chest of the injured. It was noticed by this Court that there was no proof that the injury inflicted by the accused was such as that could be sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death of the injured. The evidence in that case indicated that the injury was inflicted during the course of altercation between the accused. This Court observing that the accused inflicted only one injury and it could not be stated that he had acted in a cruel manner, held that the offence of the accused fell under section 308 IPC. The facts of that case are not very different from the facts of the instant case. Here also, the injury was caused during altercation between the injured and the complainant and particularly when the complainant caught hold of the accused and forced him to pay for the damage caused to the cycle. And only one injury was caused by the accused to Prakash Chandra. Here also, the injury was caused during altercation between the injured and the complainant and particularly when the complainant caught hold of the accused and forced him to pay for the damage caused to the cycle. And only one injury was caused by the accused to Prakash Chandra. It is, therefore, held that the act of the accused appellant is punishable under section 308 IPC and not under Section 307 IPC. 7. As already stated, the occurrence had taken place in 1982. It is noticed that the accused has already remained in jail for about three months. The application filed by the learned counsel for the appellant in this Court in 1995 shows that the appellant had got job in the Indian Oil Corporation, Bikaner on temporary basis and he wanted that his appeal be disposed of early, so that his case for regularisation might be considered. 8. The Apex Court in the case of Harikishan v. State of Haryana 1988 SC 2127 has emphasised the need of invoking the provisions of Section 357 Cr.P.C. The relevant observation at paras 10 & 11 of the report are reproduced hereunder: "10. Sub-section (1) of Section 357 provides power to award compensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused. In this case, we are not concerned with sub-section (1). We are concerned only with sub-section (3). It is an important provision but Courts have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object of 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 noticed that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to reassure 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 of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent, a constructive approach to crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way." "11. The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable. What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment may also very depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by instalments, may also be given. The Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default." 9. Taking all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I consider it a fit case in which sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant and compensation is awarded to injured Prakash Chandra. 10. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellant under section 307 IPC is altered to Section 308 IPC. The sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone by the appellant. The fine of Rs. 100/- imposed by the trial court is maintained. It is further directed that the appellant shall pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to Prakash Chandra. He is given four weeks time to deposit the amount of compensation and fine in the trial court, In default of deposit of amount of compensation the appellant shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year three months which shall be in addition to the sentence of imprisonment which he is to suffer in default of payment of fine as ordered by the trial court.Appeal Partly Allowed. *******