JUDGMENT The appellants were tried for the offence under section 307 I.P.C. by the 3rd Addl. Sessions Judge Damoh, in S.T. No. 2/86 for inflicting incised injuries by means of knife and axe to P.W. 7 Bafati and P.W. 8 Zabir Khan on 31.8.85 at 4.15 p.m. in Futera Ward No.1 Kotwali, Damoh. Shri S.L. Kochar learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the appellant No. 1 Natthu Khan has died who is the real brother of P. W. 7 Bafati. Both the injured PWs. 7 & 8 were medically examined by P.W. 5 Dr. R.C. Rai and P.W. 6 Dr. V.S. Yadu who have deposed that the injuries found on the person of the injured were not dangerous to life. P.W. 1 Dr. O.P. Dube also examined both the injured and he found fracture on the parietal bone of the head of P. W. 7 Bafati and he did not find any fracture on the person of the Zabir Khan P.W.8. Shri S.L. Kochar has further contended that the appellant had no intention or knowledge to cause the death of any of the injured. There was no intervening circumstances to save the life of the injured if the appellant had any intention or knowledge to cause the death of the injured, therefore, the offence under section 307 I.P.C. is not established. Reliance was also placed in the case of Sarju Prasad v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1965 SC 843 ). Alternatively Shri Kochar has argued that the offence has been compromised between the complainant and the appellant outside the Court and a compromise petition has been filed which is pending for permission to compound the offence. Reliance was also placed in the case of Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1988 SC 2111 ). From the medical evidence available on the record, it appears that the injuries inflicted to the injured were not dangerous to life. It is thus evident, that the appellant had no intention or knowledge to cause the death of the 2 injured. The conviction of the appellant under section 307 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. However, the offence under section 326 I.P.C. is amply proved against the appellant. It is thus evident, that the appellant had no intention or knowledge to cause the death of the 2 injured. The conviction of the appellant under section 307 I.P.C. cannot be sustained. However, the offence under section 326 I.P.C. is amply proved against the appellant. It appears that good sense has prevailed between the parties and they have compromised the offence outside the Court, therefore, it is desirable, in the interest of justice, to accord the permission to the parties to compound the offence. The permission is accorded to the parties to compound the offence. In the result, the appellant is acquitted, and the appeal is allowed.