P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) THE two petitioners challenge the order of conviction and sentence under sections 307, 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code. The trial court has imposed a sentence of 5 years RI. and fine of Rs. 2001- with a default sentence of one months RI. on each of the accused under Section 307. Indian Penal Code, and no separate sentence was imposed in respect of other offences. The appellate court having confirmed the order of conviction and sentence, the present revision has been filed. ( 2 ) IT is alleged in the F. I. R. lodged by P. W. 1 that there was previous enmity between the accused persons and the injured (P. W. 4) who is a co-brother-in-law (Sadhu) of the informant. Earlier to the incident the accused persons had threatened the injured as they belonged to rival factions of the trade union of Aska Spinning Mill. On 28-11989 at about 12. 50 p. m. while the injured and the informant were returning from Aska Notified Area Council Office and were proceeding towards the house of one Dutikrushna Panda, they noticed that one Ambassador Car bearing registration number O. R. L. 301 was speeding towards them from be hind. Petitioner No. 1 was driving the said vehicle and petitioner No. 2 was sitting inside the car. The car dashed against the injured from behind as a result of which he fell into a nearby drain and the left-side front wheel of the car also got stuck in the drain. Both the petitioners came out from the car. Petitioner No. 2 caught hold of the injured and petitioner No. 1 assaulted him with knife causing multiple injuries. At that point of time some police officers reached the spot and rescued the injured and snatched away the knife from petitioner No. 1. On the aforesaid allegations F. I. R. was lodged immediately at the spot and thereafter the formal case was registered at the police station and on conclusion of the investigation, charge sheet was submitted under sections 307, 326, 325, 324, 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code against both the petitioners. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused persons was one of complete denial. It was claimed that due to Union rivalry and previous enmity a false case had been foisted against the petitioners. ( 3 ) THE plea of the accused persons was one of complete denial. It was claimed that due to Union rivalry and previous enmity a false case had been foisted against the petitioners. ( 4 ) 19 witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. The accused persons examined, one Khalli Behera a charge-sheet witness, as P. W. 1 who stated that though there was incident of assault on the injured, yet it was not perpetrated by the present petitioners. Relying upon the evidence of the injured (P. W. 4) and the informant (P. W. 1), as corroborated by several other eye witnesses as well as the evidence of the doctor regarding the injuries on P. W. 4, the trial court convicted the petitioners under Sections 307, 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code, which has been affirmed by the appellate court. ( 5 ) IN this criminal revision, it is contended that in view of the evidence of D. W. 1 who was admittedly an eye witness to the occurrence, the courts below should have held that the assault was by some other culprits and not by the present petitioners. It is further contended that in view of the admitted enmity between the parties and in view of the serious contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses the courts below should have given the benefit of doubt to the petitioners. It is also contended that even assuming the entire prosecution case to be true, it cannot be said that the intention of the accused persons was to cause death of the injured and the conviction under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, should not be sustained. The learned counsel appearing for the State has supported the findings of the courts below. ( 6 ) IT is true that D. W. 1 was a charge-sheet witness. While being examined as defence witness, he has supported the plea of the accused persons to the extent that the crime has not been committed by them. However, in view of the overwhelming evidence of eye witnesses and the F. I. R. which was lodged within ten minutes of the occurrence by an eye witness implicating both the accused persons the evidence of D. W. 1 cannot be given preference. However, in view of the overwhelming evidence of eye witnesses and the F. I. R. which was lodged within ten minutes of the occurrence by an eye witness implicating both the accused persons the evidence of D. W. 1 cannot be given preference. Both the courts below have analysed this aspect of the matter and have come to a conclusion that the petitioners were the perpetrators of the crime. Sitting in revision, I am not inclined to take a different view of the matter. ( 7 ) THE second contention of the counsel for the petitioners that in view of the enmity and contradictions in evidence of the prosecution witnesses benefit of doubt should have been extended to the accused persons is also destined to meet the same fate of rejection. Enmity is a double- edged weapon. Merely because there was enmity between the injured and the informant on the one hand and the accused persons on the other, it cannot be easily accepted that the injured would falsely implicate the accused persons and allow the actual offenders to go scot free. As already indicated, the F. I. R. was lodged at the spot ten minutes after the occurrence. Thus it is evident that there was hardly any time for making embellishment or even to cook up a false story against the two petitioners. Apart from the evidence of P. Ws. 1 and 4, the evidence of other eye - witnesses who are police officers clearly implicate the accused persons. The various materials and circumstances proved in the case clearly point out regarding the guilt of the petitioners and there is no scope for taking a view that the petitioners were not the culprits. The so-called contradictions pointed out by the counsel for the petitioners appear to be very minor. The courts below have discussed the matter in depth and I am not persuaded to take a different view of the matter. ( 8 ) COMING to the third submission of the counsel for the petitioners, it is to be examined as to whether it can be said beyond all reasonable doubt that an offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, had been committed The prosecution case is that the accused persons wanted to will the injured by running the car over him and the injured escaped miraculously by side stepping. As per the prosecution case after the vehicle struck against the injured, and the injured fell down the accused persons came out and one of them caught hold of the injured and the other assaulted the injured with knife. If in fact, the accused persons had the intention to kill the injured in view of the helpless condition of the injured and in view of the fact that he was held by one of the accused persons the other accused could have easily killed the injured by dealing appropriate blows. From the nature and extent of the injuries sustained by the injured, it is difficult to come to a conclusion that, in fact, the knife-blows were given with a view to killing the injured. Similarly, from the manner in which the car struck against the injured, it is difficult to come to an absolute conclusion that the sole intention of the accused persons was to kill the injured by running the vehicle over, him. In such view of the matter, it would be hazardous to uphold the conviction under Section 307. Indian Penal code and the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt on that score. ( 9 ) SO far as the other offences are concerned, as already discussed earlier there is nothing to disbelieve the prosecution story. The injured had sustained simple as well as grievous injuries. Knife had been utilised. Therefore, conviction under Sections 326, 325, 324 and 323 read with Section 34, Indian Penal Code is to be maintained. ( 10 ) DURING the pendency of the revision, initially an affidavit of the informant and subsequently a petition supported by affidavit of the informant were filled indicating that the parties have resolved their disputes and misunderstanding amicably and the offences should be compounded. Apart from the fact that the offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, is not compoundable, the petition, itself is not supported by affidavit of the injured himself, but of the informant. In such a case the compounding has to be done by the injured and not the informant. Therefore, it is not possible to allow the said petition filed by the informant to permit compounding of the offences. In such a case the compounding has to be done by the injured and not the informant. Therefore, it is not possible to allow the said petition filed by the informant to permit compounding of the offences. ( 11 ) THE courts below had not imposed any separate sentence on the accused persons under Sections 326, 325, 324 and 323, Indian Penal Code, and had only imposed sentence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code. Now that the order of conviction and sentence under Section 307, Indian Penal Code, is held to be unsustainable, the question is as to what sentence should be imposed on the petitioners in respect Of the other offences. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the incident had taken place about eight years back, and having regard to the affidavit on record, I consider that a sentence of six monthts rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/ -, in default, RI. For further three months under Section 326. Indian Penal Code, would meet the ends of justice and no separate sentence need be imposed under other sections. ( 12 ) ACCORDINGLY, the Criminal Revision is allowed in part to the extent indicated above and while acquitting the petitioners under Section 307 and convicting them of the other charges, impose sentence of six months RI. , and a fine of Rs. 1,000 I - with the default clause, as indicated above on each of the accused persons under Section 326, Indian Penal Code. No separate sentence is imposed under other sections. Out of the fine amount realised, a sum of Rs. 1,500/- be paid to the injured as compensation. Appeal allowed partly. .