Judgment N.N.Singh, J. 1. Both these appeals arise out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.3.1989 passed in Sessions trial No. 57 of 1982 by 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Arrah and as such they are being disposed of by this common judgment. In Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 1989, appellants Jagdish Singh and Mahendra Singh were convicted under Sections 307/34 and 148 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 27 of the Arms Act and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years, six months and three years respectively each. In Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1989 all three appellants were convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months only. Accused Lagar Singh @ Sheo Kumar was acquitted by the trial Court. 2. The prosecution case, as mentioned in the fardbeyan (Ext. 4) given by the informant Baban Singh (P.W. 6), was that on 20th July, 1981 at about 9.10 a.m. when the informant went to see his seed-ings, he found them damaged by trampling by elephant and thereafter, he, his brother, Judge Singh (P.W. 2) along with Basudeo Singh (P.W. 4) went to the house of Awadesh Singh. Further case of prosecution was that as the informant was abusing the pilwan of the elephant, appellant Jagdish Singh came there and he also abused them and then he went to his house and again came back with appellant Mahendra Singh and both of them were armed with guns and Lager Singh was armed with bhala. It was alleged that Jagdish Singh and Mahendra Singh fired at the informant and his brother Judge Singh causing injury to them and Lager Singh assaulted both them with bhala. It was further submitted that appellants Jagdish Singh and Mahendra Singh wanted to reload their guns which was caught hold of by the informant and his brother Judge Singh and meanwhile, appellants Bilash Singh, Kailash Singh and Bhimal Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 125/89 came there with lathi and assaulted the informant. It was further submitted that appellants Jagdish Singh and Mahendra Singh wanted to reload their guns which was caught hold of by the informant and his brother Judge Singh and meanwhile, appellants Bilash Singh, Kailash Singh and Bhimal Singh of Criminal Appeal No. 125/89 came there with lathi and assaulted the informant. The FIR was lodged at 3.00 p.m. on 20.7.81 on the basis of which Nawanagar P.S. Case No. 96 of 1981 was registered against the appellants and others and the police after due investigation submitted charge-sheet and after cognizance and commitment they were put on trial which ended in conviction of the appellants and acquittal of one accused Lager Singh, as aforesaid. 3. The defence of the appellants was that they were falsely implicated in this case due to previous enmity and litigation between the parties and no such occurrence did not take place at the house of Ram Awadesh Singh and that appellants had no elephant and as such they have no reason to pick up the quarrel. 4. The prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of its case. Ram Awadesh Singh, at whose house the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place was not examined. The I.O. of this case and the doctor who had examined the injuries of injured Baban Singh (P.W. 6) and Judge Singh (P.W. 2) were also not examined. P.W. 7 Indradeo Lala is a formal witness who proved injury reports (Ext. 2 and 2/1) and P.W. 8 Murat Ram is also a formal witness who proved the seizure-list (Ext.3) P.W. 1 Jhalku Singh, father of the informant and P.W. 3 Dadan Singh, brother of the informant, are hearsay witness who arrived at the P.O. after the occurrence. P.W. 4 Basudeo Singh and P.W. 5 Chandra Singh are said to be eyewitness of the occurrence. Admittedly, they were own cousin, P.W. 6 Baban Singh is the informant who is injured and P.W. 2 is Judge Singh who is also injured. 5. Mr. Sumant Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 117/89 at the very outset, contended that doctor who had examined the injuries and issued injury reports has not been examined and no expert witness has been examined to prove the injury reports of the doctor nor the injury reports were tendered in evidence under Section 294 of the Cr.P.C. and the injury reports (Ext. 2 and 2/1) proved by a formal witness Indradeo Lala (P.W. 7) without stating as to whether the doctor was available or not, and as such the contents of the injury reports cannot be looked into. He further contended that no case under Section 307 of the I.P.C. is made out from the allegation in the FIR as no injury was allegedly caused on any vital portion of the body. He further contended that though it is alleged that bhala was used by Lager Singh no penetrating injury was found on the person of the injured and that the incised injury cannot be caused by bhala. He further contended that investigation officer of this case has not been examined which was essential for locating the P.O. and attention of the witnesses were also drawn towards some contradictory statement which could not be proved in absence of examination of the I.O. and as such the defence has been prejudiced for non-examination of the I.O. His further contention was that from injury reports, at best only a case under Section 324 of the I.P.C. can be made out against the appellants Jagdish Singh and Mahendra Singh, which are compoundable offence and through supplementary affidavit, a compromise petition was filed. He also contended that in absence of consideration of nature of injury offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act can also not be made out. 6. On behalf of the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1989 it was submitted that three appellants were convicted under Section 148 of the I.P.C. and that offence cannot be made out as according to the FIR these appellants were not present at the time of commission of the first part of the offence, and as such they had no common object. The Addl. P.P. rightly submitted that even when other three appellants arrived later on, there could be a common object of unlawful assembly. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111 (Mahesh Chandra v. The State of Rajasthan) in which the apex Court permitted the case to be compounded in a case of even non-compoundable offence. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 2111 (Mahesh Chandra v. The State of Rajasthan) in which the apex Court permitted the case to be compounded in a case of even non-compoundable offence. He further relied on another decision of Malkiat Singh and another v. The State of Punjab and others, reported in (1982) 3 SCC 371 , in which in view of compromise, sentences of the appellant were reduced to the period already undergone. 8. On the basis of the discussion made above, I find that in absence of examination of the doctor at best a case under Section 324 of the I.P.C. can be made out against appellants Jagdish Singh and Mahendra Singh which is compoundable offence. In view of the compromise between the parties, appellants are permitted to compound their offence and accordingly, conviction of the appellants Jagdish Singh and Mahendra Singh under Sections 307/34 which was altered under Section 324 of the I.P.C. stands compounded under Section 320 (5) of the Cr. PC. Those two appellants are acquited of the charge under Section 324 of the I.P.C. and they are also acquitted of the charge under Section 27 of the Arms Act as the injury report was not proved. Now remains the conviction of the appellants of both the appeals under Section 148 of the I.P.C. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants of Criminal Appeal No. 125 of 1989 rightly submitted that even according to the prosecution case all three appellants were armed with lathis only and as such their conviction under Section 148 of the I.P.C. is not maintainable and at best these three appellants can be convicted under Section 147 of the I.P.C. The learned counsel for the appellants also drew my attention towards the fact that this case remained pending for 18 years and appellants have suffered the strain and stress of punishment throughout this period. It was also submitted that no useful purpose will be served in sending them to jail again after 18 years, more so when the case has been compromised between the parties and two of the appellants, namely Kailash Singh and Bilash Singh were aged about 80 years and 75 years respectively. From perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that these appellants were in custody for about 20 days after conviction. From perusal of the order-sheet, it appears that these appellants were in custody for about 20 days after conviction. In my opinion sentence under Sections 148/147 of appellants of both the appeals should be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them which would meet the ends of justice. 10. In the result, both these appeals are partly dismissed with alteration in conviction, as aforesaid and acceptance of compromise and sentence of appellants under Sections 148 and 147 of the I.P.C. is modified to the period already under gone.