JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.The present appeal has been filed against the order of the Court below whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 307 IPC and sentenced to three years R.l. alongwith fine of Rs. 3000/-. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant does not challenge the factum of conviction. However, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that about 1 year and one and half months sentence has already been undergone by the appellant and instead of requiring the accused appellant to serve out the complete sentence, it would be appropriate that he may be asked to pay compensation to the injured Smt. Kamla. He proposes that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- may be ordered to be paid as compensation to be paid to the injured. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor states that the accused has committed the offence and, therefore, he should be dealt with. 4. Looking to the facts of circumstances of the case coupled with the fact that the accused appellant was sentenced in the year 1990, the incident is of the year 1989 and the appeal is being heard in the year 2000, this Court feels persuaded that instead of maintaining the sentences of imprisonment the accused appellant be saddled with financial liability and he should be ordered to pay compensation to the victim. Therefore, it is ordered that the accused appellant will deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in paid to the victim Smt. Kamla in this case. The amount shall be paid by the learned Trial Court to the victim. In case the amount is not deposited, the accused appellant shall undergo the sentences recorded against him by the learned Trial Court. If the amount is paid then the sentence of imprisonment shall stand converted into sentence of fine. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds (stand) shall stand cancelled on depositing the amount.In the result, while maintaining the conviction of the appellant, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.Appeal partly allowed. *******