JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. This revisional application under Section 397 read with Section 401 CrPC is directed against the particular finding of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar, North Tripura dated 11.07.2011 in Crl. Appeal 20(3) of 2010, whereunder the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, while did not interfere in the judgment and order of conviction dated 20.08.2010, passed by learned Asst. Sessions Judge in Sessions Trial Case No. 28(NT/D) of 2009 but reduced the amount of compensation from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- only. 2. Having felt aggrieved, the petitioner, who is the victim prosecutrix of the criminal proceedings, filed the present revisional application challenging that part of the observation made by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge. 3. Heard learned counsel, Mr. Ratan Datta for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor, Mr. A Ghosh for the respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 2 though recorded appearance engaging learned counsel on his behalf but is absent before the Court when the matter is taken up. 4. A criminal prosecution was initiated against the respondent No. 2 by the father of the present petitioner by way of lodging an FIR on 26.10.2008 before the O/C Dharmanagar P.S. whereunder allegation was made that the accused-respondent No. 2 had love affairs with the petitioner and with the assurance of marriage undergone intercourse with the petitioner and thereafter, refused to marry her. Police Case No. 185/2008 under Section 376/306/511 of IPC was registered on 26.10.2008 and after investigation charge sheet was filed against the respondent No. 2. Cognizance was taken on the basis of the police report and the trial of the case was taken up in the Court of Assistant Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar vide case No. ST 28(NT/D) 2009 and learned Assistant Sessions Judge at the conclusion of trial by judgment dated 20.08.2010 held the accused guilty of committing offence punishable under Section 417 of IPC and released him on probation but at the same time directed the accused to pay compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the prosecutrix, i.e. the petitioner herein, for the loss and suffering the petitioner suffered due to the wrongful act committed by the accused-respondent No. 2. 5. The accused-respondent No. 2 challenged the judgment by preferring Crl. A. 20 (3) of 2010 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar and learned Addl. 1,50,000/- to the prosecutrix, i.e. the petitioner herein, for the loss and suffering the petitioner suffered due to the wrongful act committed by the accused-respondent No. 2. 5. The accused-respondent No. 2 challenged the judgment by preferring Crl. A. 20 (3) of 2010 in the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge, Dharmanagar and learned Addl. Sessions Judge by the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2011 upheld the conviction and order of release on probation but reduced the compensation from the amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 50,000/- only stating that it was a bit harsh in terms of the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Datta that the petitioner is an unmarried young woman and the accused had love affairs with the victim/petitioner and giving assurance of marriage, the accused undergone intercourse with her but subsequently went back to his promise and refused to marry her and thereby cheated her. 7. The impact of such stigma and suffering of the victim petitioner was considered by the trial court. But the appellate court failed to consider it in a proper perspective and abruptly reduced the compensation without assigning reason. Learned counsel, therefore, prayed for interfering with that part of the finding of the appellate court. 8. Learned PP submitted that the trial court has assigned reason while imposing compensation to be paid by the accused respondent No. 2 for the loss and suffering of the petitioner-victim and the appellate Court would not interfere in it. 9. I am aware of the power of this Court in respect of interference exercising jurisdiction under Section 397 CrPC which limits to the extent of illegality, impropriety and incorrectness of the finding and regularity of the proceedings. I feel that this Court is required to interfere with that part of the finding since it seems to be improper on the part of the appellate court to interfere with the finding of the trial court while the finding was for compensation to a victim, a young lady who was cheated by the accused. The stigma which a young unmarried lady is suffering cannot be compensated by money. If it is known to the society that she had premarital sex with any other person and in that case, it is rare that she will be getting a suitable match in her life. The stigma which a young unmarried lady is suffering cannot be compensated by money. If it is known to the society that she had premarital sex with any other person and in that case, it is rare that she will be getting a suitable match in her life. Under such circumstances, the amount of compensation awarded by the trial court in the factual position that the accused-respondent No. 2 is a railway employee, cannot be said to be harsh in any manner. The finding of the appellate court while interfering in the amount of compensation is concerned, in my considered opinion, was not at all called for specially in a case where he was satisfied that the conviction was properly recorded. 10. I am, therefore, inclined to interfere with the finding in respect of reduction of compensation is concerned, as recorded by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the impugned judgment dated 11.07.2011 passed in Crl. Appeal No. 20(3) of 2010. Therefore, the order of the learned Sessions Judge directing reduction of compensation from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs.50,000/- only is interfered with and set aside. The accused-respondent No. 2 shall make payment of compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the victim as per the direction given by the trial court in its judgment dated 20.08.2010. The trial court shall take proper steps for realization of the compensation, if not paid in terms of the trial court’s judgment. 11. The revisional application accordingly stands disposed of. Send back the LC records along with a copy of this judgment.