JUDGMENT 1. - Two accused appellants, namely, Gangalia and Himmat Singh were tried for offence under Sections 323 and 302 IPC. At the conclusion of trial, the learned trial Judge convicted appellant Gangalia for offence under Section 323 IPC and appellant Himmat Singh for offence under Section 304 Part II IPC. 2. During tendency of appeal, appellant Ganglia died and his appeal stood abated vide order of this court dated 13.5.2003 Now remains the appeal of appellant Himmat Singh. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant frankly conceded that he does not want to challenge the conviction of the appellant. His argument is that appellant has entered into a compromise with the complainant Smt. Pramod. Learned counsel submitted that both the parties belong to the same family. The complainant has also submitted her affidavit deposing therein that appellant Himmat Singh is responsible member of their family and he is the earner. After the death of her husband, the appellant been taking care of entire family. In this back ground learned counsel submitted that appellant may be sentenced to the period already undergone in confinement. 4. I have given my anxious consideration to the above submissions. It appear from the impugned judgment and the evidence on record that on a very petty matter the appellant started belabouring the complainant. At that time, complainant's daughter Ramila was in her hands. The appellant intended to inflicit lathi blow on the complainant but that blow unfortunately hit her daughter, which resulted in her death. The learned trial court having concluded that appellant had knowledge that infliction of blow may result in causing death of Ramila who at the relevant time was in the lap of complainant, whom the appellant intended to cause harm, convicted the appellant under Section 304 Part II IPC. In my view the learned counsel for the appellant has rightly not challenged the conviction of the appellant. 5. I have gone through the affidavit filed by complainant Smt. Pramod, which reflects that parties have entered into compromise. Complainant Smt. Pramod and appellant Himmat Singh both were present in the court. Both of them have stated that they are members of the same family and there remains no dispute between them. 5. I have gone through the affidavit filed by complainant Smt. Pramod, which reflects that parties have entered into compromise. Complainant Smt. Pramod and appellant Himmat Singh both were present in the court. Both of them have stated that they are members of the same family and there remains no dispute between them. The complainant has stated before the court that appellant is the sole bread earner of the family and after the death of her husband, he has been looking after the entire family. According to her if the appellant is sent to jail, her entire family will be put to starvation and prayed that he may be pardoned. 6. Taking into consideration the fact that parties have entered into compromise and in view of what has been stated by the parties before the court, I consider it just and proper and in the interest of justice to sentence the appellant to the period already undergone by him.In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC is maintained and he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him in confinement. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender to his bail bonds, which are hereby discharged.Appeal Partly allowed. *******