JUDGMENT Gohil, J. -- Trial Court has convicted appellant Purushottam under section 307 IPC and sentenced him to imprisonment for life. Trial Court had also convicted appellants Uttama and Gundi under sections 307/34 and sentenced them to undergo 10 years RI. During the pendency of this appeal, appellants Uttama and Gundi both have expired, therefore, their names have been deleted from the memo of appeal and now the only appeal of appellant Purushttam remains for consideration. As per prosecution story, on 27.8.1982 in the morning injured Ayodhya Singh (PW 1) was ploughing his field alongwith his uncle. Ramkishan (PW 7). At the same time, all the three appellants came there from the side of Baksipura and stood on the border of the field of Harinarayan. While ploughing the field, when the back portion of Ayodhya Singh came towards the appellants, appellant Purushottam fired on him by 'Katta'. Ayodhya Singh received fire arm injury on his back and he fell down on the border of the field. When Ramkishan (PW 7) objected, 'Katta' was shown to him also and appellant Uttama exhorted Gundhi - 'Maar Sale Ko'. Thereafter, Ayodhya Singh was taken to police Station. FIR was lodged. He was also referred for medical examination. Matter was investigated and chargesheet was filed. Trial Court recorded the evidence of as many as 10 witnesses and in defence appellant also examined 3 witnesses. Trial Court after considering the evidence of all the witnesses found the appellant guilty for commission of crime u/s 307 IPC, convicted and sentenced them as aforesaid against which the appellant has filed this appeal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Shri Padam Singh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the appellant has been implicated falsely and no case is made out against him and alternatively he submitted that the incident took place in the year 1982, the appellant is facing trial since last 23 years and uptil now he has also suffered jail sentence of more than eighteen months. It is a case of single fire. It is a case of single fire. He has further submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties and both the parties have filed a joint application before this Court for recording the compromise between them and thereafter placing reliance on the case of Munna alias Vijay Kant v. State of Rajasthan [ (1982) 3 SCC 380 ] he prayed that the conviction of the appellant be maintained and he be released on undergone jail sentence. In reply Shri C.S. Dixit, learned public prosecutor for respondent State submitted that the relations between the parties are inimical and after his release at any time any untoward incident may happen between the parties. From the record he has pointed out that there is enmity between the parties and before this incident earlier also there was quarrel between the parties and some persons were murdered from both the sides. Criminal proceedings were initiated and some of the witnesses were accused persons in that criminal case. We have considered the evidence on record. PW 1 Ayodhya Singh has specifically stated about the fire made by appellant Purushottam. He has also maintained his statement in the cross-examination and nothing adverse has come against him. PW 2 Sevaram has also supported the prosecution and has deposed that- Purushottam fired on Ayodhya Singh by fire arm on his back. PW 4 Mobarman Singh has also supported the prosecution case. He is also the eye-witness of the incident and has stated that Purushottam had caused injury to Ayodhya Singh by fire arm. PW 5 Lakhanlal, PW 6 Mavasiram and PW 7 Ramkishan are also the eye witnesses of the incident and they have supported the prosecution story and nothing adverse has come in their cross-examination. Evidence of eye-witnesses is also supported by PW 10 Dr. V.K. Diwan who has found entry wound on the back side and an exit wound on the front side of chest. He has also categorically stated that injuries were dangerous to life. In the cross-examination he has also stated that in case of not receiving treatment in time, he could have died. Therefore, the case is corroborated by medical evidence. All the three defence witnesses have categorically stated that Ayodhya had received fire arm injury but it is not known that who caused that injury. In the cross-examination he has also stated that in case of not receiving treatment in time, he could have died. Therefore, the case is corroborated by medical evidence. All the three defence witnesses have categorically stated that Ayodhya had received fire arm injury but it is not known that who caused that injury. From this evidence also it is clear that Ayodhya had received fire arm injury, prosecution witnesses PW 1, PW 2, PW 4 to PW 7 have categorically stated that the said injury is caused by Purushottam. Therefore, when the evidence is clear against him, we do not find any case for interference in the conviction recorded by the trial Court under section 307 IPC for attempt to murder. At this stage, as argued by learned counsel for the appellant that the jail sentence be reduced to three years RI, the only question that remains for consideration is whether the jail sentence is liable to be commuted. It is true that the trial Court has awarded LI, excessive jail sentence to the appellant. It is also not in dispute that the incident took place on 27.8.1982. Both the parties were residing in the same village. It is also not in dispute as prayed by counsel for appellant, that during this period no untoward incident has taken place between the parties. The appellant has already suffered mental agony for more than 23 years. Reason for the incident was previous enmity between the parties. PW 6 Mavasiram has stated that there was enmity between Kishorilal father of Ayodhya and Banshilal, father of Purushottam, now both have died and thereafter there was compromise between the parties and there is no party politics in the village and now they are living peacefully. Though the compromise cannot be recorded between the parties under section 307 IPC as the offence is not compoundable u/s 320 CrPC but both the parties have filed an application before this Court to show that they are living peacefully and there is no dispute between them and such an circumstance of compromise can be used for commuting the jail sentence of the appellant. Both the parties have stated that now they will live peacefully in the village. Both the parties have stated that now they will live peacefully in the village. Therefore, considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that this criminal case is pending between the parties for last 23 years and no untoward incident has taken place between them during last three years and appellant has already suffered jail sentence of more than 18 months, the jail sentence of the appellant Purushottam is reduced from life imprisonment to three years RI for which counsel for State has no objection and in the opinion of this Court, the same shall serve the ends of justice. Accordingly this appeal is partly allowed. Conviction of appellant Purushottam under section 307 is maintained but his sentence is reduced from life imprisonment to three years RI. Appellant is in jail. He is directed to suffer the remaining jail sentence of three years RI.