JUDGMENT Following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant Punaram stands convicted u/s 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Camp, Mahasamund on 26.2.1990 in Sessions Trial No. 159/88. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Appellant Punaram is the brother-in-law (Jija) of complainant/injured-Tarachand. On 26.1.88 Tarachand was threshing his paddy crop in his threshing-yard (Kothar). The appellant had also kept his crop for threshing in kothar of Tarachand. Appellant had requested Tarachand to complete his threshing hurriedly so that he may also thresh his crop. On this account, some quarrel took place between them. At about 3.00 p.m., Tarachand was standing at a place where some stones were lying. There also they entered into quarrel. The allegations are that the appellant assaulted victim-Tarachand by a stone who received injuries on his skull. In medical investigation, it was found that there was linear fracture in the temporal bone of victim-Tarachand. The charge-sheet was filed u/s 307 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge held that an offence u/s 307 IPC is not made out, however, the appellant was liable for punishment u/s 326 IPC. Accordingly, he was convicted u/s 326 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 4 years. During the pendency of the appeal, complainant Tarachand and appellant Punaram jointly filed an application (I.A. No. 01/2009) u/s 320 (5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that they have entered into compromise and the complainant/victim does not want any action to be taken against the appellant. He has prayed for compounding the offence on the basis of compromise and for acquittal of appellant/accused- Punaram. (3) Mr. Arun Kochar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not challenged the conviction part of the judgment. He has pressed the application (I.A. No. 01/2009) filed u/s 320 (5) Cr.P.C. He also argued on sentence praying that looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the jail sentence awarded to the appellant be reduced from 4 years to the period already undergone. He relied on judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Surendra Nath Mohanty and another -Vs- State of Orissa, AIR 1999 SC 2181 and in Jalaluddin -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh, 2001 AIR SCW 2266. (4) On the other hand, Mr. He relied on judgments rendered by the Supreme Court in Surendra Nath Mohanty and another -Vs- State of Orissa, AIR 1999 SC 2181 and in Jalaluddin -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh, 2001 AIR SCW 2266. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Sameer Behar, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. (5) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. (6) So far as conviction of the appellant u/s 326 IPC is concerned, the same is based on cogent, clinching and reliable evidence of record. Victim Tarachand has been examined as PW-6. He has clearly deposed regarding assault being made by the appellant. The injuries sustained by the appellant have also been duly proved by Dr. K. Vinaykumar (PW-2) and Radiologist Dr. S.C. Vishnoi (PW-1). Therefore, I confirm the conviction of the appellant u/s 326 IPC. (7) In Surendra Nath's case (supra), the appellants were convicted and sentenced u/ss 307, 326, 325, 324 & 323 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to 5 years R.I. with fine sentences. The High Court altered the conviction of the appellants u/ss 326, 325, 324 & 323 read with Section 34 IPC and imposed sentence of 6 month's R.I. & fine of Rs.1,000/- with default sentence for the offence u/s 326 IPC and no separate sentence was imposed on the other counts of offences. It appears that in High Court, an application for compounding the offence was moved but the same was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that there is complete scheme provided in Section 320 Cr.P.C. for compounding the offences and in view of the legislative mandate, only the offences which are covered by table 1 or 2 contained therein can be compounded and rest of the offences punishable under Indian Penal Code could not be compounded. Rejecting the above contentions raised by the counsel for the appellants, the Supreme Court observed that the parties have settled their dispute outside the Court and 10 years have elapsed from the date of the incident and further that the appellants have already undergone 3 months imprisonment as per the sentence imposed on them, and reduced the sentence imposed against the appellants to the period already undergone besides imposing a fine of Rs.5,000/-. (8) In Jalaluddin's case (supra), the appellant was armed with a churra (knife) with which he gave a blow to the victim as a result of which his nose-bone was fractured. The appellant was convicted u/s 326 IPC. His conviction was maintained throughout. He was sentenced to undergo R.I. for 18 months. In appeal an application u/s 320 Cr.P.C. was filed in the Supreme Court in which it was stated that the complainant and the appellant are close relations and have compromised the dispute outside the Court. It was prayed that the offence may be permitted to be compounded. The Supreme Court rejected the application saying that the offence u/s 326 IPC is not compoundable and it cannot be compounded. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that the occurrence had taken place long back on 24.12.79 on a trivial issue, the complainant and the accused are close relations, and now living amicably, the sentence awarded to the appellant was reduced to the period already undergone. (9) In the present case also the appellant is brother-in- law (Jija) of the victim. They have amicably settled the dispute outside the Court. The incident took place on 26.1.88 and a long period has elapsed thereafter. The incident occurred on account of petty matter i.e. threshing of the crop. They have filed a joint application for compounding the offences in which a prayer is made that the appellant be acquitted. In view of the above judgments, the application (I.A. No. 01/2009) for compounding the offences cannot be allowed. Therefore, the same is rejected. However, looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that the ends of justice would be served if the sentence imposed upon the appellant is reduced to the period already undergone by him which comes to about 18 months in this case. (10) Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. While confirming the conviction u/s 326 IPC, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 4 years, imposed against the appellant, is reduced to the period already undergone in the ends of justice. (11) The appellant is on bail, his bail bonds are cancelled and the surety stands discharged.