AMAR SARAN, J. In this case Ramesh Singh, appellant No. 1 has died. Report regarding his death was called from the C. J. M. Bijnor, who vide his report dated 22-6-2004 has confirmed the death of the appellant. Therefore, the appeal against Ramesh Singh, appellant No. 1 stands abated. 2. This appeal was preferred against the judgment and order dated 5-7-1980 passed by the IV Additional Sessions Judge, Bijnor in S. T. No. 47 of 1979 whereby he convicted Ramesh Singh and Lakhpat under Section 307 IPC and sentenced each of them to seven years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 or to further six months R. I. in default for attempting to commit the murder of Purshottam. They are similarly sentenced to a separate term of seven years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 or to six months R. I. in default under Section 307 IPC for attempting to commit the murder of Vijaybhan. Kalwa and Raghubir were convicted under Sections 307/34 IPC and sentenced to seven years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500 or to six months further R. I. in default for attempting to commit the murder of Purshottam. They are further sentenced to seven years R. I. and a fine of Rs. 500/- or to six months further R. I. in default under Sections 307/34 IPC for attempting to commit the murder of Vijaybhan. All the sentences were to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution story was that some time before this occurrence Ramesh Singh and others had a quarrel with Naubat Singh, P. W. 7 and there was some Marpeet. Ramesh Singh lodged a report against Naubat Singh and that was the reason for ill will and hostility of Ramesh and others towards Naubat Singh and others. Consequent to that enmity, on 25-3-1978 when a Holi chaupai was being sung in the village, Purshottam P. W. 2 and many other residents of the village were present. Ramesh Singh, Kalwa, Lakhpat and Raghubir also came to that spot and threatened. Naubat that they would take revenge Naubat replied that it was a festival day and they should not pick up a quarrel on that day. The other persons present there also pacified Ramesh Singh and others and thereafter they left the place. However, they climbed the roof of Lakhpat. Naubat that they would take revenge Naubat replied that it was a festival day and they should not pick up a quarrel on that day. The other persons present there also pacified Ramesh Singh and others and thereafter they left the place. However, they climbed the roof of Lakhpat. Ramesh and Lakhpat, who were armed with guns while Raghubir and Kalwa, who were having sticks, called out for Naubsit and started firing from the roof. The pellets hit Purshottam, P. W. 2. Ganpat Singh also witnessed the incident. Purshottam and Vijaybhan went on the cart of Jhunna Singh to the police station. Purshottam and Vijay Bhan were sent to the Primary Health Centre of Seohara. Injury reports were prepared and investigation was conducted by S. I. N. K. Tyagi. After investigation, he submitted a charge-sheet. At the trial the prosecution examined Purshottam, P. W. 2, Vijay Bhan, P. W. 3, Ganpat Singh, P. W. 4, Devi Singh, P. W. 5 and Naubat Singh, P. W. 7 as eye witnesses of the occurrence. Besides, Constable Ram Kishan Pandey, P. W. 1 and S. I. N. K. Tyagi, P. W. 6 and Jhunna Singh, P. W. 8 were also examined. 4. The accused pleaded denial and false implication due to enmity. 5. A significant development has taken place in this case that there that been a compromise in the matter between the parties. Compromise application along with affidavit was filed in this Court, which was sent for verification on 6-1-1996 to the C. J. M. , Bijnor. This application was received back after verification from the CJM vide his report dated 29-6-1996. This compromise was effected between the surviving appellants and the two injured persons Purshottam and Vijaybhan. 6. In view of this compromise and as the dispute between the parties have been resolved, no purpose would be served by upholding the substantive sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants. Furthermore the appellants have undergone about two months sentence. The incident took place about 26 years ago on 25-3-1978. The appellants and the two injured persons are co- villagers. It always serves the ends of justice when such warring parties decide to bury the hatchet and to amicably settle their disputes by means of a compromise. 7. Furthermore the appellants have undergone about two months sentence. The incident took place about 26 years ago on 25-3-1978. The appellants and the two injured persons are co- villagers. It always serves the ends of justice when such warring parties decide to bury the hatchet and to amicably settle their disputes by means of a compromise. 7. In this case we note that the two injured persons did not identify the persons, who fired at them even in Court, but it appears that the appellants have been nominated at the instance of other persons who were inimical to them. There is no evidence also of the doctor stating that the injuries received by the injured were dangerous to life, which as is mentioned in the case of Rekha Mandal v. State of Bihar, 1968 SCD 208, is a requirement for reaching a finding that an offence under Section 307 IPC is disclosed. Otherwise it would only be a case under Section 324 IPC. 8. In the case of Pappu and others v. State of Punjab, JT 1999 (10) SC 353, Honble Supreme Court allowed the compromise by the injured in a case under Sections 307/323/149 IPC and reduced the sentence to the period of sentence already undergone by the accused. 9. Likewise in the case of State of U. P. v. Faiz-ur-Rehman, 2003 (2) A. Cr. R. 1617, the Supreme Court has again reduced the sentence to the period already undergone in a case under Section 307 IPC on the ground that there has been a compromise between the parties. 10. In this view of the matter, I also allow the parties to bury the hatchet. The sentence awarded to the surviving appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. 11. The appeal is allowed as above. Appeal allowed. .