Judgment : This revision is against the conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri in C.A.No. 15 of 1991 affirming the findings of the learned Assistant Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri in S.C.No. 30 of 1990 for the offence under Sec. 307 of Indian Penal Code. 2. The revision petitioner and his wife Mangammal were prosecuted on the allegation that on 212. 1989 they attempted to murder P.W.1 who is none else then the brother of the revision petitioner and with the assistance of the second accused who has been acquitted by the lower appellate court these revision petitioners stabbed P.W.1 on his chest flank, head causing grievous injuries, Apart from the injured P.W. 1, his brother and mother also were examined as P.Ws.2 and 3 to support the prosecution case and the trial court accepting the prosecution case completely convicted both the accused for the offence under Sec. 307 of Indian Penal Code. But the lower appellate court acquitted the second accused and has confirmed the conviction of this revision petitioner. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner would contend that there is discrepancy in the evidence as to the place of occurrence because P.W. 1 would say that the occurrence had taken place in front of the cattle shed whereas the sketch Ex.P-9 prepared by the investigating officer shows that the occurrence has taken place in the pial of the revision petitioner and the sketch itself is sufficient to prove that P.W. 1 should have been the aggressor as he came to the house of the revision petitioner to attack him. On a perusal of this sketch Ex.P-9. I find the house of the revision petitioner and the cattle shed are within 30 feet. So these buildings are situated close to each other. The evidence also discloses that P.W.1 the injured person after the partition from his brothers, is residing in an adjacent village by name Ombalakattu whereas the revision petitioner resides in Savuloor, which is at a distance of two kilo meter from Ombalakattu. It is also seen from the evidence that the revision petitioner used to go to cultivate his lands in Savuloor and therefore, he is having his cattle shed close to the house of the revision petitioner and his mother is residing separately in another shed adjoining the cattle shed. It is also seen from the evidence that the revision petitioner used to go to cultivate his lands in Savuloor and therefore, he is having his cattle shed close to the house of the revision petitioner and his mother is residing separately in another shed adjoining the cattle shed. The occurrence has been spoken to by P.Ws.1 to 3. It transpires from the evidence of P.W.1 that on 212. 1989 when P.W.7 came to his cattle shed he found his ‘Samai’ which is a millet, dried by his mother was eaten by the fowis of the revision petitioner, for which he (P.W. 1) shouted and the revision petitioner taking objection for that quarrelled with P.W. 1 and therefore, P.W.1 slapped him. On account of this ill-feeling between the brothers on the next day when P.W.1 came to his cattle shed, the prosecution case is, that he was stabbed by the revision petitioner. P.W.1 has narrated that he was stabbed on his chest on the left hand side in addition to the stabs on the left flank, head and the right elbow etc. The medical evidence also supports his version with regard to the injuries on his body. The eye witnesses are none else than the other brother of the revision petitioner and his own mother, P.W.2 the brother of the revision petitioner would state that as he heard the voice of P.W.1 he came and saw the revision petitioner stabbing his brother and therefore, he snatched the knife M.O.3 from his hand, P.W.3 the mother of the revision petitioner also would support the prosecution case that P.W. 1 was stabbed by her own son, the revision petitioner. When so much evidence has come from the mouth of these two witnesses who are the brother and mother of the revision petitioner, I find no reason to disbelieve their testimony with regard to the occurrence alleged against the revision petitioner. When so much evidence has come from the mouth of these two witnesses who are the brother and mother of the revision petitioner, I find no reason to disbelieve their testimony with regard to the occurrence alleged against the revision petitioner. The courts below considering the seat of the injury viz., the chest which is the vital part of the body and also as the aim was at the chest and on the head, have taken the view that the revision petitioner had the intention of causing the death of his brother and therefore, he is liable to be punished under Sec. 307, I.P.C. Even, though it is argued by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that there is no proof to who that injuries were likely to cause death, to attract the punishment under Sec. 307, I.P.C. and that the revision petitioner cannot be punished under Sec. 307, I.P.C. he further argued that the injuries on P.W. 1 cannot be said to be grievous in nature because the surgeon who treated the injured for injury No. 1 has not seen examined, it is seen that injury No. 1 had penetrated deep into the body and emergency operation was done. P.W.8 has given his opinion that injury No. 1 was grievous in nature. Irrespective of the question whether the injury No.1 was grievous or simple in nature, the intention of the accused may be derived from his conduct when he used the weapon against the victim. As the injuries were found on the vital parts viz., the left chest and also the head, we need not go into the question whether the injuries were grievous in nature or whether they were likely to cause death of P.W. 1. No doubt if the accused had no intention to murder, then it has to be seen as to whether the injuries inflicated on the victim by the accused where sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course and whether the accused had knowledge of the same. But noticing the conduct of the accused- revision petitioner who inflicted injury in the vital part of P.W.1 it is proper to infer that he intended to cause the death of his brother P.W. 1. Therefore, I find no error in the findings of the Court below that the revision petitioner has committed the offence under Sec. 307 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, I find no error in the findings of the Court below that the revision petitioner has committed the offence under Sec. 307 of Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the conviction and sentence ordered by the courts below are perfectly correct. 4. Now in this revision, though I concur with the finding of the courts below the event that has now occurred before me has to be referred to. The victim P.W. 1 appeared before this court yesterday and he and the revision petitioner have filed a petition to permit them to compound the offence. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner represented that even though the offence under Sec. 307, I.P.C. is not compoundable. The Supreme Court and this Court have taken a view that in the interest of welfare of both parties if they compromised, the matter, the offence could be compounded. I feel that when the offence under Sec. 307, I.P.C. is made as non-compoundable offence, the court cannot invoke Sec. 482, Crl.P.C. for compounding the offence. Therefore, the petition to compound the offence has to be dismissed. 5. Even though I am not ordering for compounding the offence, as the victim and the revision petitioner assailant are brothers and they appeared before me stating that they have compromised the dispute between them I feel that concession can be shown in the sentence. I am informed by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that the revision petitioner was in custody, for 47 days. Taking into consideration the circumstances which I referred to above viz., the compromise between the revision petitioner and the victim and also their relationship as brothers. I feel that that to perpetuate the cordiality between them, the sentence can be reduced to the period which he had undergone. 6. In the result, the conviction is confirmed but the sentence is reduced to the period undergone and the revision petitioner is released. The bail bond is cancelled.