JUDGMENT Honble Vinod Prasad, J.—Hori Singh, the father, Har Govind Singh his son, Nau Bahar Singh his brother-in-law all socio criminis of Crime No. 325 of 2003 have filed this appeal challenging their convictions and sentences under Section 307/34 and 506, I.P.C. for ten years R.I. with fine of Rs. 1000/- each on first count and one year R.I. on the second count. They have further been ordered to undergo three months imprisonment in default of payment of fine by Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 7 Bijnor vide his impugned judgment dated 31-7-2006 passed in Sessions Trial No. 208 of 2004, State v. Hori Singh & Ors. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. 2. The thumb nail description of the prosecution case against the appellants are that Rikkhi Singh, father of informant Har Swaroop Singh had 28 Bighas of land at Khasra No. 28. Out of the said 28 Bighas Rikkhi Singh had sold 20 Bighas of land to Nirmala Devi wife of Hori Singh his brother. Rest 8 Bighas of land were mutated on 11-6-2005 in the name of his own wife Vimla Devi. Puran Singh, the brother of Rikkhi Singh had also 20 Bighas of land. On 7-3-2003 in the night Hori Singh, Har Govind Singh and Nau Bahar Singh brother-in-law of Hori Singh went to the field because they had suspicious that the other side will cut the crop. They were accompanied by Yogesh Kumar and Narendra Singh. At the field they met Hori Singh, his son Har Govind Singh and brother-in-law Nau Bahar Singh who started vetuparising them. When they were asked to desist from vetuparization, Nau Bahar Singh instigated the other two on which Har Govind Singh whisked out a country-made pistol from his pant pocket and fire a shot at the informant Har Swaroop. The shot, however, evaded the informant but caused injury to Narendra Singh in the head. Injured Narendra Singh was rushed to Jaspur Hospital from where he was referred to Vivekanand Hospital. Informant lodged the F.I.R. regarding the said incident on 8-7-2003 at 9.30 p.m. It was mentioned that incident was witnessed in the torch light. F.I.R. is Exhibit Ka-7 and GD entry Exhibit Ka-8. The ensued investigation resulted in the charge-sheet against accused appellants and they were committed to the Court of Sessions by IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nagina for trial. F.I.R. is Exhibit Ka-7 and GD entry Exhibit Ka-8. The ensued investigation resulted in the charge-sheet against accused appellants and they were committed to the Court of Sessions by IInd Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Nagina for trial. Additional Sessions Judge Court No. 7, Bijnor in S.T. No. 108 of 2004, State v. Hori Singh & Ors., charged them with offences under Section 307/34, 504, I.P.C. which charge was denied by the appellants accused who claimed to be tried. 3. Prosecution to prove its case examined Har Swaroop Singh P.W. 1 (informant), Yogesh Kumar P.W. 2 (eye-witness), Narendra Kumar P.W. 3 (injured), Dr. Ajay Jain P.W. 4, Dr. Sanjay Kumar P.W. 5, Constable Naunihal Singh P.W. 6, S.I. Harendra Pal Singh P.W. 7 (Investigating Officer) and Constable Jagat Singh P.W. 8. 4. Accused in their statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. took the usual defence of false implication and examined Vinod Kumar D.W. 1 in their defence. 5. Harswaroop Singh P.W. 1 narrated the prosecution version and stated that 27-28 years before his father Rikkhi Singh had partitioned the land between his sons Har Swaroop Singh (informant) P.W. 1, Pooran Singh and Hori Singh (appellant). His brother Pooran Singh was unmarried and used to live with the informant. His another brother Hori Singh (appellant) under the influence got a registered sale-deed of 20 Bighas of land in the name of his wife from father Rikkhi Singh but that land was not in possession of Hori Singh. Because of the aforesaid fact Hori Singh nurtured enmity with his two brothers. On 7-7-2003 at 1.00 a.m. Hori Singh, his son Har Govind and brother-in-law Nau Bahar Singh went to the field alongwith Yogesh son of Hori Singh and Narendra son of brother-in-law of Hori. There the incident occurred. 6. Yogesh Kumar P.W. 2 also narrated the same prosecution version, which was well supported by the evidence of Narendra Kumar P.W. 3 the injured. Dr. Ajay Jain P.W. 4 evidenced that Narendra has sustained a brain injury and he was unable to speak. He was operated upon and 23 pellets were recovered from his brain cavity. His X-ray report and C.T. Scan reports were proved as Exhibit 3 and Ka 4 by Dr. Ajay Jain P.W4. Dr. Dr. Ajay Jain P.W. 4 evidenced that Narendra has sustained a brain injury and he was unable to speak. He was operated upon and 23 pellets were recovered from his brain cavity. His X-ray report and C.T. Scan reports were proved as Exhibit 3 and Ka 4 by Dr. Ajay Jain P.W4. Dr. Sanjay Kumar P.W. 5 testified that on 8-7-2003 at 2.10 p.m. he had medically examined Narendra Kumar P.W. 3 who had sustained a lacerated wound on the left side of his head 9 cm. x 2cm. Fresh blood was oozing out from the said injury and injured was referred to Neuro Surgeon. Medical report of the injured prepared by Dr. Sanjay Kumar P.W. 5 is Exhibit Ka-6. Constable Naunihal Singh P.W. 6 had prepared chik Exhibit Ka-7 and GD Exhibit Ka-8 which were proved by him. S.I. Harendra Pal Singh P.W. 7 had investigated the case and made spot inspection and had prepared the site plan. He had recorded the statement of witnesses and after concluding the investigation had submitted the charge-sheet, Exhibit Ka 10 in Court against the accused. Constable Jagat Singh P.W. 8 again is a formal witness. 7. Vinod Kumar D.W. 1 testified before the Court, besides other things, that on 7.7.2003 Ramayan recital was going on at his house which finished on 8.00 p.m. and in that Har Govind and Hori Singh were present throughout. Thus, this defence witness had tried to prove the alibi of the appellants Har Govind and Hori Singh. 8. The trial Judge after hearing both the sides convicted the appellants and sentence them as has been mentioned in the opening part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 9. During the course of the appeal a compromise was arrived at and entered into between injured Narendra Singh and the accused appellants regarding which affidavit was also filed by Narendra Singh injured. The said compromise was sent for verification by this Court. The report of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 7, Bijnor dated 28-2-2007 indicated that the said compromise was duly verified by the injured Narendra Kumar son of Dal Chandra. After verification it has been received to this Court. 10. I have heard Sri P.N. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel in support of this appeal and Sri Pankaj Satsangi holding brief of Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. 11. After verification it has been received to this Court. 10. I have heard Sri P.N. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel in support of this appeal and Sri Pankaj Satsangi holding brief of Sri Gaurav Kakkar, learned Counsel for the informant and the learned A.G.A. 11. Learned Counsel for the appellants did not attract the conviction part of the impugned judgment but confined himself only on the sentence awarded to the appellants. Sri P.N. Mishra, learned senior Counsel contended that even though Section 307, I.P.C. is not compoundable and the offence cannot be compounded yet keeping in view the compromise entered into between injured Narendra with the accused appellants, who are close relatives of each other, it is in the interest of justice that the sentence of the appellants be reduced. He submitted that that period of imprisonment still left to be served by the appellants should be converted into fine. 12. Learned Counsel for the informant also agreed to this and he had raised no objection regarding the conversion of rest of unserved imprisonment into fine. 13. After hearing both the sides I am of the opinion that since the matter has been compromised by the injured therefore, while maintaining the conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34, I.P.C. and 504, I.P.C. their sentences of unserved imprisonment be altered into fine. In my view sentence of the period of imprisonment already undergone by the appellants with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) each with Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) from each appellant as compensation to the injured for the miseries suffered by him will be adequate sentence. 14. Resultantly this appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the appellants under Section 307/34, I.P.C. and 504, I.P.C. is maintained but the sentence of the appellants on both the counts are altered in to the period of imprisonment already undergone by them with fine of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) each on all the appellants. Out of the said fine to be deposited by each appellant Rs. 20000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) are awarded as compensation to the injured Narendra Kumar. Trial Court is directed to release the appellants on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- (Rs. Twenty five thousand) each on all the appellants. Out of the said fine to be deposited by each appellant Rs. 20000/- (Rs. Twenty thousand) are awarded as compensation to the injured Narendra Kumar. Trial Court is directed to release the appellants on bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- (Fifty thousand) and two sureties each in the like amount to its satisfaction for realizing the amount of fine awarded on the appellants by this judgment and appellants are allowed one month time from the date of their release from jail to deposit the fine awarded to them. As soon as the appellants deposit the fine, trial Court is directed to summon the injured Narendra and disburse him a total amount of Rs. 60,000/- (Rs. Sixty thousand) as compensation within a period of a month thereafter. As soon as fine is deposited by each of the appellant trial Court will discharge their personal and surety bonds. 15. In the event of default in payment of fine within the allowed period by this judgment, the trial Court shall cause the appellants to be arrested and lodge them in jail to serve out the remaining part of sentence awarded by it vide its impugned judgment. 16. With the aforesaid modification in sentence this appeal is partly allowed. ————