JUDGMENT M.M. Kumar, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.4.2003 and 5.4.2003 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad convicting and sentencing the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code. The appellants have been sentenced to undergo five years rigorous imprisonment under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. In default of payment of fine, the defaulting accused have been ordered to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year, setting off the period of detention from the sentence which they have already undergone during the enquiry, investigation and trial, if any. Along with the appeal, Criminal Misc. No. 49935 of 2003 is also being disposed of wherein plea set up is that a compromise between the convicts and the complainant has been arrived at in the presence of Mahan Panchayat where in the presence of witnesses, the convicts have agreed to maintain peace and tranquillity in future. The affidavits and the compromise dated 6.10.2003 and 13.10.2003 have been placed on record as Annexure P-1 to P-3. 2. The prosecution version as disclosed in the order of Additional Sessions Judge is that complainant Subhash had a servant with the name of Ajay who was allegedly kidnapped by the convicts on 8.6.1995 when the complainant had gone away to purchase some household articles. On search, Ajay was found locked in the house of Mahesh accused. The cousin of complainant Chander who had located Ajay requested accused Mahesh to free Ajay. However, Mahesh refused and threatened to beat him. On the receipt of information, complainant Subhash along with his family member and others went to Kashipur and when the Panchayat was sitting in the house of Hargian in Village Kashipur, then accused Mahesh came with a Ballam in his hand and gave blow to Balraj on the upper portion of his left eye. When the complainant attempted to save his brother Balraj, then accused Mahesh gave Ballam blow to him. Ram Hans, Nathi and other two accused also gave lathi blow to Balraj and alleged to have threatened to kill complainant Subhash and his brother. On 14.6.1995 the matter was reported to Police Station Hassanpur and a case under Sections 324/325/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. Ram Hans, Nathi and other two accused also gave lathi blow to Balraj and alleged to have threatened to kill complainant Subhash and his brother. On 14.6.1995 the matter was reported to Police Station Hassanpur and a case under Sections 324/325/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. The accused were arrested and after completion of necessary investigation, challan against the accused was submitted. Complainant Subhash filed a complaint under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, Criminal Procedure Code) and the accused were also summoned under Sections 307/363/342 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. On the basis of overwhelming evidence against the accused, the learned Additional Sessions Judge found that the prosecution had established its case under Section 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code and acquitted the accused of the charge under Sections 342 and 363 Indian Penal Code. All of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs. 2,000/- each. 3. Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the parties have now compromised the dispute and the accused have realised their mistakes. According to the terms of the compromise Annexure P.1, the convicts have undertaken to live peacefully. He has also drawn my attention to the compromise written by the Panchayat which has been signed by more than 35 persons which include Sarpanches, Panches and inhabitants of Villages Kashipur, Raipur and Rahimpur. Even the bother of the complainant who was injured in the fight has filed an affidavit that the matter has been compromised and the acceptance of the compromise would promote the sense of love and affection between the parties. The learned counsel has argued that on the basis of compromise, the appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charges by holding them innocent. According to the learned counsel, it would promote friendship in the village communities. The learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Mahesh Chand and anr. The learned counsel has argued that on the basis of compromise, the appellants are liable to be acquitted of the charges by holding them innocent. According to the learned counsel, it would promote friendship in the village communities. The learned counsel has placed reliance on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Mahesh Chand and anr. v. State of Rajasthan, 1988(1) RCR 498 (SC) Ram Lal and another v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (1999)2 SCC 213 and two judgments of this Court in the cases of Harjit Singh v. State of Haryana, 2001(1) RCR(Criminal) 311 (P&H) and Hari Singh and others v. State of Haryana, 1988(2) RCR(Criminal) 610 (P&H). 4. Mr. S.S. Brar, learned State Counsel, has argued that there is no provision for compromising offences contemplated by the Criminal Procedure Code The learned State counsel has referred to Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code which furnishes a list of offences which may be compounded. The learned counsel has maintained that the offence under Section 307 Indian Penal Code is not included in the aforesaid list. Therefore, it would be against the public policy to permit quashing of conviction and acquitting the convict-appellants. 5. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered view that this appeal along with the application are liable to be dismissed because no compromise is permissible under the law in cases involving commission of heinous crimes. There is a marked division made by the Criminal Procedure Code between cognizable and non-cognizable offences. The offences which are in the nature of private wrongs have been kept in the area of non-cognizable offences and the aggrieved person could peruse his grievance by filing a private complaint under Section 190 Criminal Procedure Code unless directed by the Magistrate that the police should investigate. The offences which are termed as cognizable offences have been kept in the category of public wrongs and considered as crime against the society. These are 21 Penal Code offences. However, even from that category certain offences have been lumped together under Table-1 appended to Section 320(1) Criminal Procedure Code for the purposes of compounding. All these offences could be compounded by obtaining consent of the person who has suffered at the hands of the accused. These are 21 Penal Code offences. However, even from that category certain offences have been lumped together under Table-1 appended to Section 320(1) Criminal Procedure Code for the purposes of compounding. All these offences could be compounded by obtaining consent of the person who has suffered at the hands of the accused. There are 36 other Penal Code offences given in Table-2 appended to Section 320(2) of Criminal Procedure Code which could be compounded with the permission of the Court only in case prosecution or appeal against conviction is pending as is evident from Section 320(5). This view has been affirmed by the Supreme Court in Bhim Singh v. State of U.P., (1974)4 SCC 97. 6. Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code further provided that no offence could be compounded if the accused is a previous convict and is liable to suffer either enhanced punishment or a punishment of different kind for such an offence. There is express prohibition under clause (9) providing that no offence except as provided by Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code could be compounded. 7. The basic rationale for adopting the policy of compounding discernible from Criminal Procedure Code is the gravity of offences. Most of the compoundable offences are cognizable namely where police officer has no authority to arrest the accused without warrant. Those offences are in the area of a private wrong which does not involve the element of crime against society. Such like cases are allowed to be compounded because criminality involved does not demonstrate that such a person is likely to commit the offence against any one and every one. Those are individualistic expression against a particular person. The offences like robbery, dacoity and theft would fall in the category of offences against general public displaying criminality against one and all. Persons accused of individualistic crimes may not be required by a welfare State to be reformed so as to enable them to become part of mainstream because their criminality is not of such an enormity. Moreover, the resources in the form of investigation agency etc. at the disposal of the State are limited which have to be concentrated and used for more serious offences. Moreover, the resources in the form of investigation agency etc. at the disposal of the State are limited which have to be concentrated and used for more serious offences. However, it does not necessarily mean that commission of an individualistic offence can never display the deep seated criminality of an accused which may be serious enough requiring the State to perform (reform ?) such a person to bring him back in the main stream. Such an accused when convicted has to be segregated from the society so that he may not cause any threat to the peaceful living of others. Such an accused has to be treated properly in right earnest in the hope that he would shed his criminality to become part of the mainstream. The offences under Sections 302, 307, 326 Indian Penal Code are of this nature and have been deliberately kept outside the list of offences given by Section 320 Criminal Procedure Code 8. Therefore, the offences other than the one listed in Tables 1 and 2 of Section 320 (1) and (2) Criminal Procedure Code are not compoundable. In this regard reliance may be placed on the decision in Ram Lals case (supra) in which the Supreme Court while holding that the judgments in the cases of Mahesh Chand (supra) and Y. Suresh Babu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, JT 1987(2) SC 261 were per incuriam observed as under ;- "We are unable to follow the said decision as a binding precedent. Section 320 which deals with "compounding of offences" provides two Tables therein, one containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded by the person mentioned in it, and the other containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded with the permission of the court by the persons indicated therein. Only such offences as are included in the said two Tables can be compounded and none else. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 imposes a legislative ban in the following terms : "320. (9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section." It is apparent that when the decision in Mahesh Chand was rendered, the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the aforesaid legal prohibition. Nor was the attention of the learned Judges who rendered the decision in Y. Suresh Babu drawn. Hence those were decisions rendered per incuriam. Nor was the attention of the learned Judges who rendered the decision in Y. Suresh Babu drawn. Hence those were decisions rendered per incuriam. We hold that an offence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with the permission of the court cannot be compounded at all. The offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is, admittedly, non-compoundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the learned counsel to permit the same to be compounded." 9. Therefore, the argument of learned counsel for the appellants that the offence under Sections 307 read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code be compounded does not merit acceptance and is, thus, liable to be rejected. 10. Although no argument has been raised challenging the conviction on merits. However, in the interest of justice I have examined the evidence on record and find that the place and time of occurrence, presence of the accused on the scene of occurrence and the injuries caused to Balraj son of Panni and Subhash his brother. The occurrence is alleged to have taken place on 14.6.1995 at about 5/6 PM and the FIR was promptly lodged on the same day at about 9.45 P.M. According to the allegations made in the FIR, Balraj had suffered three injuries at the hands of the accused Mahesh, Ram Hans and Nathi. Subhash has also suffered injuries at the hands of Mahesh. Dr. M.M. Sharma, appearing as PW 1 had stated that he had examined Balraj and found three injuries on his person and has advised X-ray ofSkull. He was also advised to take the opinion of eye surgeon regarding injury 2 and referred the patient to General Hospital, Patwal. Injuries Nos. 1 and 2 were kept under observation and injury No. 3 was simple. It was further found that injuries Nos. 1 and 3 were caused by blunt weapon and injury No. 2 was caused with sharp weapon. He proved his Medico Legal Report Ex.P.A. He also proved the other report Ex.PB in respect of Subhash and found two injuries on his person. Subhash was also advised X- ray skull including facial bones. He referred the patient to General Hospital, Palwal for x-ray treatment. It is pertinent to point out that in the cross- examination Dr. Sharma stated that there was no injury which could be declared dangerous to life. Subhash was also advised X- ray skull including facial bones. He referred the patient to General Hospital, Palwal for x-ray treatment. It is pertinent to point out that in the cross- examination Dr. Sharma stated that there was no injury which could be declared dangerous to life. Injury No. 2 on the person of Balraj was not possible by a pointed weapon like Ballam and the same was his answer with regard to injury No. 2 on the person of Subhash. However, he also stated that the injury could not be self suffered. Balwant Singh HC PW3 is a formal witness who received rukka Ex.PC and recorded FIR Ex.PF. Balraj son of Panni also appeared as PW 4 and corroborated the version recorded in the FIR. This witness is an eye witness being the injured. He has also named other witnesses like Sukhbir and Naranjan Singh who had seen the occurrence. Naranjan had appeared as PW 5. He has also deposed by mainly corroborating what is stated by Balraj injured. So is the statement made by Chander Pal PW6. 11. However, Dr. Parmodh Kumar, PW 7 from General Hospital, Palwal proved his report Ex.PW 6A and as per the report the fracture of frontal bone was found and the same was dangerous to life of Balraj. Rohtash Singh ASI PW 8 is a formal witness. 12. In defence, the accused-appellant examined DW 1 Hargian, DW 2 Dr. D.S. Rathee who has stated that there were injuries on the person of Mahesh Kumar, accused. Hargian DW 1 has admitted that number of villagers were attracted to the place of occurrence and they started throwing stones on the complaint party. His statement further shows that complainant party did not cause any injury to the accused. 13. After examining the whole evidence, I do not find that the prosecution version suffers from any improbability or is open to any doubt. The seat of the injury is the right eye of Balraj which he suffered at the hands of the accused. It could not be concluded that the prosecution has failed to prove its case. In all materials particulars viz. the place of occurrence identity of the accused, weapon used as well as the injury suffered have been amply proved. The FIR has been recorded promptly before there was time for concoction or interpolation. Therefore, the conviction is liable to be upheld. In all materials particulars viz. the place of occurrence identity of the accused, weapon used as well as the injury suffered have been amply proved. The FIR has been recorded promptly before there was time for concoction or interpolation. Therefore, the conviction is liable to be upheld. Even the sentence cannot be considered on higher side which is also liable to be upheld. Even on merits no case is made out for interference. No other argument has been advanced. For the reasons stated above, this appeal and the application for bail filed under Section 389 Criminal Procedure Code being Criminal Misc. No. 49935 of 2003 are dismissed. Appeal dismissed.