JUDGMENT ;- This appeal and application are being decided together. The appeal arises out of judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by learned 1st Ad-hoc Additional Sessions Judge. Aurangabad, in Sessions Case No.441 of 2002. By the impugned Judgment, both the appellants have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the I.P.C. They are sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 4 (four) years each and to pay fine of Rs.500/(Rs.Five hundred) each in default, to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. The incident giving rise to the prosecution occurred on July 1st, 2002. The victim is the wife of appellant No.1. Appellant No.2 is the mother of appellant No. I. The victim alleged that she was being harassed and ill-treated by the appellants. She lodged report after the incident alleging that the appellants forcibly administered some poisonous substance to her on the day of incident in the residential house. She was rushed to Government Hospital at Aurangabad for treatment. Thereafter, she took further treatment in Dr. Hedgewar Hospital, Aurangabad. She was discharged on September 12th. 2002. The Police carried out certain investigation into the accusations made in the complaint. A white colour plastic bottle was seized from the house of the appellant. At bottom of the bottle some poisonous substance was found. 3. Though, initially both the appellants were charged for offences punishable under Sections 498-A read with 34 of the I.P.C. and 307 read with 34 of the I.P.C. yet on basis of material placed before him, the learned Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the charge of matrimonial cruelty was not proved against either appellant. Both the appellants were, therefore, acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 498-A read with 34 of the I.P.C. 4. The learned Sessions Judge was pleased to accept the solitary testimony of the victim - PW-Sou. Meerabai. He held that she had no business to speak lie against the appellants/accused. The learned Sessions Judge noticed that PW-Sou. Meerabai was required to obtain medical treatment for twelve days on account of alleged poisoning. Hence, he rendered the order of impugned conviction and sentence. 5. The parties have settled the dispute outside the Court. The learned Advocate for the appellants would submit that a compromise petition is duly verified as shown in Criminal Application No.150 of 2008. Meerabai was required to obtain medical treatment for twelve days on account of alleged poisoning. Hence, he rendered the order of impugned conviction and sentence. 5. The parties have settled the dispute outside the Court. The learned Advocate for the appellants would submit that a compromise petition is duly verified as shown in Criminal Application No.150 of 2008. It appears form the terms of the compromise petition that the spouses have reunited. The wife is now residing with the husband, i.e. appellant No.1. They have resolved the dispute. The complainant – Sou. Meerabai has forgiven the appellants and she desires to co-habit with the appellant No.1. It is, in the wake of such development that a request is made to slash sown the substantive sentence upto the period already undergone. 6. Since the appeal is not pressed into service on merits, it is not necessary to consider the legality of order of conviction. The only question is as to whether the subsequent development brought to the notice of this Court is a sufficient and mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence awarded to the appellants. The appellants have learnt a lesson since they have undergone the ordeal of the trial for a considerable period from the year 2002 till the date of conviction in 2004 and thereafter, the sword was hanging on them in view of the pendency of appeal. The appellant No.1 is an agriculturist. The incident in question occurred when there was matrimonial discord. The appellants are now repenting and have agreed to allow the original complainant – Sou. Meerabai to reside with them. Though the offence under Section 307 of the I.P.C., yet such subsequent development can be looked into while considering appropriate ness of the sentence. It would be one of the mitigating circumstance to reduce the sentence. Otherwise, when the spouses have decided to join company of each other after a long drawn period, the substantive sentence of four years may again spoil the matrimonial relationship. In “Hasi Mohan Barman & Anr. Vs. State of Assam & Anr.” (2007 AIR SCW 7123 : 2007 ALL MR (Cri.) 3606 (S.C.)), the Apex Court held that a consent given by the complainant to withdraw the complaint cannot be utilized to acquit the accused yet sentence imposed on accused, however, be reduce to the period already undergone in view of the marriage between the accused and the complainant. The fact situation is slightly different in the present case. The broken marriage is being rejoined as a result of the settlement between the spouses. The compounding of the offence would cement their matrimonial relationship, if the sentence is reduced. 7. For the reasons aforesaid, the appeal is dismissed on merits. However, in view of peculiar circumstances noted above, the substantive sentence is reduced to one, which is already undergone by the appellants. No interference in the order of sentence regarding the fine. 8. The appeal and the application are accordingly disposed of. Appeal dismissed.