JUDGMENT 1. - This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, dated 2.2.2006, whereby he convicted & sentenced the accused appellant Saheb Ram as under: Under section 307 IPC 7 years' R.I. & to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- & in default, to further undergo one year's R.I. Under section 324 IPC One year's R.I. & to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- & in default, to further undergo two months' R.I. Under section 341 IPC One month's R.I. & to pay a fine of Rs. 100/- & in default, to further undergo 7 days' R.I. 2. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. However, the accused appellant has been acquitted for the offence u/s. 326 IPC. 3. The charge against the accused was that on 27.9.2002 at 7.15 AM, accused appellant Saheb Ram inflicted knife blow on the chest of Krishna Kumar, when he was on his way towards Mauja Soti. A report of the incident was lodged on the statement of injured Krishna Kumar vide Ex. P.2 by S.H.O., Police Station, Nohar, District Hanumangarh. Injured was medically examined when he was in the hospital. The doctor opined that the injury is dangerous to life. Consequently, after investigation, the accused was challaned u/ss. 307, 326, 341 IPC. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.PC was recorded. He led no evidence in his defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellant as above. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant does not want to argue the appeal on merits. He simply states that there was no motive of the appellant to kill injured Krishna Kumar. Had it been so, the doctor would have opined in his injury report. He has drawn my attention towards the statement of Dr. J.P. Choudhary (PW 9), who has stated in the cross examination that it is true that had the injury been dangerous to life, the injured would have died before operation. According to him, the incident took place at the spur of moment and the learned trial Judge has also acquitted the accused u/s. 326 IPC, therefore, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone. 5. Keeping in view all the facts & circumstances of the case, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and reasonable. 5. Keeping in view all the facts & circumstances of the case, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be just and reasonable. 6. The result is that the appeal is partly allowed. While maintaining the conviction of the appellant Saheb Ram recorded u/ss. 307, 324 and 341 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Nohar, District Hanumangarh, vide his judgment dated 2.2.2006, he is sentenced to the period already undergone. However, the sentence of fine shall remain intact and in addition to it, the appellant Saheb Ram shall pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 3000/- to injured Krishna Kumar. Appellant Saheb Ram be released forthwith, if not required in any other case, on depositing the amount of fine as also the compensation to be payable to injured Krishna Kumar.Appeal partly Allowed *******