ORDER K.C. Gupta, J. (Oral) - Jaipal-appellant alongwith his co-accused Inder, Hawa Singh and Sukhbir was booked in FIR No. 311, dated 9.7.1993 of Police Station Rai, District Sonepat under Section 307/34 Indian Penal Code. After trial, the appellant was found guilty and convicted under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, vide judgment dated 16.1.1995 and sentenced to RI for 4 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, vide order dated 18.1.1995 by Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, in default of payment of fine, he was further sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months. However, his co-accused, namely, Inder, Hawa Singh and Sukhbir were acquitted of the charge levelled against them by giving benefit of doubt. 2. Appellant-Jaipal filed appeal in this Court against judgment dated 16.1.1995 and order dated 16.1.1995. 3. Now the parties have compromised. Sat Parkash son of Shiv Lal, injured and Subhash Chander, complainant, have filed affidavits stating that they and the appellant belong to the same family and brother-hood, their fields are adjacent and residential houses are also located nearby in the village Saboli, District Sonepat and the compromise has been got effected at the instance of respectable persons of the village and the said compromise has restored peace, love and harmony between them which would also be beneficial to the next generation, so, they may be allowed to compromise. 4. PW.3-Dr. Farrington Rana and medico-legally examined Subhash son of Shiv Lal-complainant on 4.7.1993 and found that there was a lacerated wound on the scalp and the said injury was caused with blunt weapon which was simple in nature. According to him, offence under Section 323 Indian Penal Code was only made out, as far as injury of Subhash was concerned. 5. PW.11-Dr. Sanjay Dwivedi medico-legally examined Sat Parkash son of Shiv Lal, injured on 3.7.1993 and found that there was a head injury on his person and infact, there was a deep cut on the scalp which injury was caused by a sharp edged weapon. He next stated that the said injury was dangerous and further the same could have proved fatal if timely medical aid was not provided. He further stated in cross-examination that injury was caused by Kulhari as stated before him by some person accompanying Sat Parkash. 6. He next stated that the said injury was dangerous and further the same could have proved fatal if timely medical aid was not provided. He further stated in cross-examination that injury was caused by Kulhari as stated before him by some person accompanying Sat Parkash. 6. PW.5-Sat Parkash stated that on 3.7.1993 Jaipal-appellant had given a blow with iron rod on the head of Subhash Chander and he (Jaipal) had further given iron rod blow on his forehead. 7. Thus, according to PW.5-Sat Parkash, the appellant had given iron rod blow on his forehead. Certainly, iron rod is a blunt weapon. It cannot cause sharp edged injury. Therefore, it is doubtful that the appellant had caused sharp edge injury to Sat Parkash on his forehead. Criminal litigation is pending between the parties for the last more than 10 years. They belong to the same village and their fields are situated nearby in the village. The compromise has been effected at the intervention of responsible persons of the village. It will certainly restore good relations between them and their enmity will be over for ever and they would be able to live in peace in the village. 8. It is stated that the appellant has undergone 1 month sentence prior to conviction and 3 months sentence after conviction. In such circumstances, while maintaining the conviction under Section 307 Indian Penal Code against the appellant, his sentence is reduced to 4 months already undergone and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, he would further suffer RI for 6 months. With the modification in the sentence, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.