JUDGMENT Appellants Gopal Tiwari and Ramesh Tiwari have been convicted under section 307 IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each. The appellants and complainant Mukesh Sharma submitted an application under section 320(5) CrPC for permission to compound the offence. This application is supported by the affidavit of the complainant. It is mentioned therein that appellant No. 2 Ramesh Tiwari is a retired Railway driver and his son appellant No. 1 Gopal Tiwari was booking clerk at Sagar Railway Station. Complainant Mukesh Sharma was Ticket Collector at the same Railway Station at the time of the incident. It is also stated that now their relations are very cordial and all differences have been resolved. They are living in peace and harmony. By order-sheet dated 10.8.1998 of this Court this application was taken on record and it was observed that this application will be considered at the time of final hearing of the appeal. Mukesh Sharma (PW 13) has deposed that on 8.2.1989 he was on duty as Ticket Collector at the gate of the Railway Station. Accused Gopal and Ramesh Tiwari came near him. They abused him. Accused Gopal said ''you have got yourself transferred and how will you save yourself now". Accused Ramesh Tiwari exhorted his son to strike at him. Thereupon accused Gopal dealt a knife blow on the left side of his chest. There was bleeding from the injury. His evidence has been corroborated by Uma Shankar (PW 14) who is his maternal uncle and who was present on the spot. He has lodged the report Ex. P-3 at the Police Station at 9.30 p.m. The other witnesses have been declared hostile. Dr. Vinod Kumar Rawat (PW 9) has deposed that he had examined Mukesh at 9.45 p.m. and found an incised wound on the left side of his chest at fifth intercostal space two inches lateral to the midline size 1" x 1/4" x cavity deep as per his report Ex. P-17. It was caused by hard and sharp object. He was admitted in the hospital. Dr. P.K. Khagat (PW 1) has testified that he had performed the operation on this injury. He has given his opinion as per Ex. P-1 : "In view of the severe haemorrhage this injury was dangerous in nature to have caused death, in absence of immediate medical aid". He was admitted in the hospital. Dr. P.K. Khagat (PW 1) has testified that he had performed the operation on this injury. He has given his opinion as per Ex. P-1 : "In view of the severe haemorrhage this injury was dangerous in nature to have caused death, in absence of immediate medical aid". He has stated in cross-examination that the injury was not on vital part and it was simple. Keeping in view the size of the injury; the part of the body on which it was inflicted; it was not vital part; it did not damage the heart or the lung, there was no repeated attack and in the absence of clear motive, it should be inferred that accused Gopal Tiwari had no intention or knowledge to cause death of Mukesh. The offence is not covered by section 307 but it comes within the purview of section 324 IPC. The charge under section 3-24 IPC is brought home to accused Gopal Tiwari and under section 324/34 IPC to accused Ramesh Tiwari. Where in appeal conviction for non-compoundable offence is altered to that of a compoundable offence permission to compound can be granted. (Ram Shankar v. State of U.P.) (1982) 3 SCC 388 ). The offence under section 324 IPC is compoundable with the permission of the Court. Considering the facts mentioned in para 2 of this judgment and the affidavit of the complainant to the effect that the parties have amicably settled the matter the permission to compound the offence is granted. It would be in the mutual interest of the complainant and the appellants and also in the interest of the society that they should forget the past and live peacefully as good and law-abiding citizens. That would remove the bitterness and rancour between them. It has been observed in Shakuntala Sawhney v. Kaushalya Sawhney (1980) 1 SCC 63 that finest hour of the justice is the hour of compromise when parties after burying the hatchet re-unite by a reasonable and just compromise. The complainant and the accused are granted permission to compound the offence. It is expressed that they have compounded the offence. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and the sentence of the appellants under section 307 IPC are set aside. The complainant and the accused are granted permission to compound the offence. It is expressed that they have compounded the offence. In the result the appeal is allowed. The conviction and the sentence of the appellants under section 307 IPC are set aside. In view of the composition of the offence, the appellants are acquitted of the charges under section 324 and 324/34 IPC as provided by section 320(8) CrPC. This will be 'acquittal' for all purposes and remove the stigma attaching to the appellants by the judgment of the trial Court. The amount of fine be refunded to the accused persons if they have deposited it.