JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal u/s. 374 Cr.P.C. Challenging the judgment and order dated 29.1.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 1, Jhalawar, thereby convicting him for offence u/ss. 326 & 324 IPC and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years with a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on the first count and to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year with a fine of Rs. 500/- on the another count. In default of payment of fine, he was to undergo one month's imprisonment. 2. Mr. Mehrish, learned Advocate, appearing for the appellant has frankly conceeded that he does not want to challenge the conviction of appellant u/ss. 326 & 324 IPC on merits as recorded by the learned trial Court, and in my considered view rightly so. 3. On careful scrutiny of the evidence, ocular as well as documentary, it is proved beyond all shadow of doubt that appellant-Kanhi Ram inflicted sword blows on the person of injured Lal Chand, resulting in grievous and simple injuries. Injured Lal Chand (PW 1) and his wife Sajjan Bai (PW 2) have categorically stated in their statements that appellant inflicted sword blows on the person of Lal Chand. PW 3 Dr. Ramesh Chand Dubey, who examined the injured has opined that two incised wounds sustained by injured were grievous and one was simple in nature. The learned trial Judge having found the statements of witnesses including the injured being in corroboration with medical evidence, has rightly held the appellant guilty of having committed offence u/ss.'326 & 324 IPC. 4. As regards sentence, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the relation between injured and the appellant is that of son and father respectively. Both have settled their dispute amicably and now the injured has no grievance against his father, the present appellant. The injured has also submitted an application duly supported by his affidavit. 5. It is true that the relation between the injured and appellant is that of son and father respectively. Both have settled the dispute amicably and an application to this effect has also been filed by the injured. The injured who is present in person has verified the contents of the application and the affidavit filed by him and has specifically stated that he does not have any grievance against his father, the present appellant. Both have settled the dispute amicably and an application to this effect has also been filed by the injured. The injured who is present in person has verified the contents of the application and the affidavit filed by him and has specifically stated that he does not have any grievance against his father, the present appellant. Considering the relation between injured and appellant and the fact that parties have settled their dispute outside the Court, as also the fact that appellant has already undergone 1 year 9 months and few days' imprisonment by now, I think that ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. I find support from the decision of the Apex Court in Surendra Nath Mohanty v. State of Orissa, AIR 1999 SC 2181 , wherein, the Apex Court while dealing with the case arising out of conviction u/s. 326 IPC observed that the offence for which accused was convicted was no doubt non-compoundable, but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence, Accordingly, the Apex Court sentenced the appellant to the term already undergone i.e. 3 months. 6. In the result, the appeal of appellant-Kanhi Ram is partly allowed. While maintaining his conviction u/ss. 326 & 324 IPC as recorded by the trial Court, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is in jail and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.Appeal partly allowed. *******