JUDGMENT Mr. Kundan Singh, J. - This appeal has been preferred by the appellants Jhunku and Malkhan Singh against the judgment and order dated 4.8.79 passed by Sri P.K. Jain, Addl. Sessions Judge, Farrukhabad in Session's Trial No. 286 of 1978 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced under Section 307 I.P.C. to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 (five) years. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as follows: The victim, Krishna Murari, who is originally a resident of Amritpur, Police Station Rajepur, Distt. Farrukhabad, was residing at the house of his maternal uncle in village Rashidabad Ballabh, police station Kaimganj, Distt. Farrukhabad. On the day of incident i.e. 22.1.78 at about 1.00 p.m., the informant, Krishna Murari, was going with ropes to his field where he had already loaded his buffalo cart with his sugarcane. When he reached the chabutra of Babu Ram, lie met both the accused appellants who were armed with guns. They asked the complainant, Krishna Murari, to carry their sugarcane on his buffalo cart. The informant, Krishna Murari refused for the same. Jhunku, appellant abused Krishna Murari and thereafter both the appellants fired one shot each on Krishna Murari the complainant as a result of which the complainant sustained injuries on his person. The complainant, Krishna Murari lodged a First Infoomation Report at 5.00 P.M. on the same day i.e. on 22.1.78 at Police Station Kaimganj, Distt. Farrukhabad, giving all the facts and circumstances of the incident. The place of occurrence is stated to be at a distance of 5 miles from police station where the first information report was lodged. The injuries of the complainant, Krishna Murari, were examined by Dr. A.K. Rastogi, P.W.6 at 11.20 A.M. on 23.1.78 and the doctor found the following injuries on the person of Krishna Murari : 1. Three own shot wound ? X ?" (entry) X skin deep to muscle deep in the area of 3" X 1" it is 1" below the It. nipple the Ant. axillary line on the Lt. side Adv. X-ray. 2. One gun shot wound entry ?" X 1/9" X skin deep on the lower margin of the starmum. 3. Multiple gun shot wound ?" X ?" (entry) X skin deep in the area of 3" X 2 " it is 3' " below the left nipple on the Ant. to mid axillary line. Adv. X-ray. 4. side Adv. X-ray. 2. One gun shot wound entry ?" X 1/9" X skin deep on the lower margin of the starmum. 3. Multiple gun shot wound ?" X ?" (entry) X skin deep in the area of 3" X 2 " it is 3' " below the left nipple on the Ant. to mid axillary line. Adv. X-ray. 4. Multiple gun shots wounds entry size 1/g" X 1/g" on the Lt. hypocendrum and Lt. lumber region. Abdomen become rigid. Kept under observation and Adv. X-ray (in teh area of 7" X 6") 5. Multiple gun shots wounds entry size 1/g" X 1/g" in the area from the Ant. part of the Lt. Axilla to the wrist Lt. Joint skin deep to muscle deep Adv. X-ray & kept under observation. -Injuries are caused by projectile fire arm. -Injury No. 1 & 2 are simple. -Injury No. III, IV, V are kept under observation. Adv. X-ray. -Duration about one day. The appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge against them. The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined three eye-witnesses viz P.W. Krishna Murari, P.W.2 Ram Dularey, P.W.3 Dayanand, though Dayanand witness stated in his statement that he saw the accused running from the place of occurrence with guns in their hands and found Krishna Murari, complainant, in an injured position at his Chabootra. He also stated that he had not seen the accused persons actually firing at the complainant. The prosecution has also examined Prithvi Pal Singh, (P.W.5) who investigated the case and Dr. A.K. Rastogi (P.W.6) who medically examine the complainant. Other evidence is in formal nature. P.W.1 Krishna Murari and P.W.2 Ram Dularcy supported completely the prosecution version. Both the accused appellants denied the prosecution version. The appellant Jhunku during his statement under Section 313 Criminal Procedure Code stated that he has been roped in this case at the instance of Hanumant and Har Dayal who along with others committed murder of his father while Malkhan Singh appellant stated that some time prior to the present incident dacoity had taken place at his house in which two persons, Sham Bihari and Ram Swarup who belonged to the family of Krishna Murari's maternal uncle were also accused in that dacoity case and due to this enmity he has been falsely implicated in the present case. A police guard had been deputed for his safety and the police guard used to remain at his house but Shiam Bihari and Ram Swaroop wanted to kill him if he is found out of the protection of police guard. Hence whenever he went to go out, the guard used to accompany him for his safety. The Trial Court after considering the evidence on record found both the appellants guilty of the offence charged and recorded the conviction and sentence as stated above. The accused appellants being aggrieved by the conviction and sentence awarded to them filed the present appeal. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, the appellants and the injured, Krishna Murari filed a compromise application for compounding of the offence. The compromise application has been verified on 26.10.87. It has been stated therein that the applicants of the compromise application have settled their dispute between complainant outside the Court and they are living peacefully without any enmity or any dispute and now they want to live in such a cordial atmosphere. The learned Counsel for the complainant contended that no doubt offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is compoundable but the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a lenient view may be taken on the basis of compromise application only in awarding lessors sentence even upto the period already undergone considering the same as in non-compoundable offence. The learned Counsel for the complaint referred to the case reported in AIR 1973 S.C.2418 (Ram Pujan and Other v. State of U.P.) in which the accused were sentenced to four years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. by the Sessions Court. In the High Court, an application for compromise on behalf of the injured the accused was filed which was refused on the ground of the offence being a non-compoundable. Never the less, the High Court reduced the sentence to two years. The Supreme Court, in appeal, while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone held that the fact of compromise could be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence even if the offence for which the accused were sentenced was non-compoundable. Never the less, the High Court reduced the sentence to two years. The Supreme Court, in appeal, while reducing the sentence to the period already undergone held that the fact of compromise could be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence even if the offence for which the accused were sentenced was non-compoundable. The learned Counsel for the appellant fortified his argument basing upon the case of Mahesh Chand and Others v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1988 Allahabad Criminal Cases 186 which had been also relied upon in another Supreme Court case, Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1987 (2) J.T. S.C. 361 on the peculiar and special circumstances a non-compoundable offence can be compounded. The learned Counsel emphasised his argument that in the present case the injured, Krishna Murari, is said to have received 5 injuries, out of them, injuries Nos. 1 and 2 have been reported to be simple while injuries Nos. 3, 4 and 5 were kept under observation and was advised for X-ray but neither Dr. A.K. Rastogi (P.W.6) nor the complainant, Krishna Murari (P.W. 1) said a single word that the injuries of the victim were X-rayed. Dr. A.K. Rastogi, (P.W.6) has not stated before the Trial Court that the injuries of the victim were dangerous to life or might cause the death. As such the case would not traverse beyond the offence under Section 324 Indian Penal Code, which is a compoundable offence with the permission of the Court. The learned Counsel pointed out that the incident took place at petty quarrel between the parties at a spur of the moment, it was not a pre-planned action of the appellant resulting in the commission of the offence. The learned Counsel for the State could not substantiate any thing contrary to the submission made by the learned Counsel of the appellants. After perusing the record of the case and considering the circumstances of the incident I reach on irresistible conclusion that it would not be proper and justifiable to sent the appellants behind the bar after a period of more than 12 years, particularly the whole matter has been compromised by the parties out of Court. Both the parties are residing peacefully without any dispute or enmity in the locality of the one and the same village. Both the parties are residing peacefully without any dispute or enmity in the locality of the one and the same village. Thus the arguments of the learned Counsel for the appellants do not appear to be unreasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the facts and circumstances of the case as stated above, I have no hesitation in holding that the major offence for which the appellants have been convicted is no doubt a non-compoundable, but the fact of the case being compromised can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. In my opinion it would be just and proper to order that the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period that has already undergone. The appeal succeeds to the extent that the sentence awarded under Section 307 I.P.C. is reduced to the period of sentence that has already undergone, maintaining the conviction. The appeal is hereby allowed only to the extent on the quantum of sentence. Both the appellants arc on bail, they need not surrender to their bail bonds which are hereby stand discharged.