Judgment T.P.S.MANN, J. 1. Vide judgment dated May 20, 1998, Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot convicted Sukhdev Singh appellant under Sec.307 IPC for causing injuries to karamjit Singh and Ramesh Pal, whereas Gurmeet Singh @ Pali appellant was convicted under Sec.307 read with Sec.34 IPC. Similarly, accused gurmeet Singh @ Pali was held guilty under Sec.307 IPC for causing injuries to Ramesh Pal, whereas Sukhdev Singh was held guilty for the offence under section 307 read with Sec.34 IPC. Both of them were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and to pay a fine of Rs.200/- on each of the two aforementioned counts, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. Gurmeet Singh @ Pali was also held guilty under Sec.27 of the Arms Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month. All the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. According to the prosecution, complainant Karamjit Singh and accused Sukhdev singh were property dealers by profession and running their business at Moga. They had purchased one plot jointly, which they wanted to sell. On 28.3.1996 at about 7.00 P. M. , Karamjit Singh-complainant alongwith Ramesh Pal @ Gachi, who both were members of the Town Hall Club, Moga, went to the said club. They were sitting in the club when at about 8.30 P. M. , Sukhdev Singh accused, armed with licensed.12 bore double barrel gun came to them in the club premises, whereas Gurmeet Singh @ Pali accused, who was also armed, remained sitting in the jeep, which had been parked by them in front of the gate of the club. Sukhdev Singh sat down on a chair where Karamjit Singh and Ramesh Pal were sitting. Sukhdev Singh started talking with Karamjit Singh regarding sale of the plot. An altercation took place between them when Karamjit Singh told sukhdev Singh that he would execute sale deed only on payment of sale consideration. At this, Sukhdev Singh accused felt enraged and fired a shot, which hit Karamjit Singh-complainant on his left arm. Upon this, ramesh Pal PW came forward to rescue Karamjit Singh. Gurmeet Singh @ Pali then came out of the jeep and fired a shot hitting Ramesh pal on his left arm. At this, Sukhdev Singh accused felt enraged and fired a shot, which hit Karamjit Singh-complainant on his left arm. Upon this, ramesh Pal PW came forward to rescue Karamjit Singh. Gurmeet Singh @ Pali then came out of the jeep and fired a shot hitting Ramesh pal on his left arm. Ramesh Pal tried to run away but in the meantime, Sukhdev singh accused fired another shot hitting him on his right arm and back. The alarm raised by Karamjit Singh and Ramesh Pal attracted Ravi Kumar, who also witnessed the occurrence. In order to save himself, Karamjit Singh hid himself in the gardeners room after bolting the door from inside. Both the accused then fled away from the spot while carrying their respective weapons. 3. This Court need not to go into all the finer details of the investigation and of the trial for the reason that the learned counsel for the appellants states that though Karamjit Singh-complainant, who had received fire arm injuries, has since passed away, the other injured, namely, Ramesh Pal @ Gachi has amicably settled the matter by way of compromise with the appellants at the intervention of the respectables and for better and healthy relationship in future between them. It is also submitted that Sukhdev Singh appellant was arrested on 29.4.1996 and was granted bail for the first time by the High Court in this appeal on 27.5.1998. He, thus, remained behind the bars for a period of more than 2 years. In case of Gurmeet Singh he was arrested on 29.4.1996 and granted bail by the High Court during the trial of the case on 18.9.1996 and, thus, he had served a period of about 5 months in jail. Accordingly, prayer has been made for accepting the compromise arrived at between the parties and extending the necessary benefit to the appellants. 4. Ramesh Pal @ Gachi, who had received injuries in the occurrence is present in the Court and duly identified by his counsel Mr. B. S. Bhalla, Advocate. He corroborates the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and no ill-will or grudge is left in the minds of either of them against the other. The offences for which the appellants stand convicted are not compoundable. B. S. Bhalla, Advocate. He corroborates the fact that a compromise has been arrived at between the parties and no ill-will or grudge is left in the minds of either of them against the other. The offences for which the appellants stand convicted are not compoundable. Therefore, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, none of the appellants can be acquitted of the charges against them. However, the benefit of the compromise can be given to the appellants in the matter of their sentences. The occurrence in question had taken place on 28.3.1996. Both the appellants have been facing the agony of criminal prosecution for the last about 14 years. Ramesh Pal @ Gachi, who had received injuries at the hands of both the appellants in the occurrence in question has since decided to bury the hatchet with the appellants by way of an amicable settlement. Sukhdev Singh appellant has already undergone a period of more than 2 years in jail, while in the case of Gurmeet Singh appellant, the said period is about 5 months, whereas the maximum sentence imposed upon them is rigorous imprisonment for 5 years. Under these circumstances, ends of justice would be amply met by reducing the sentences of imprisonment imposed upon the appellants to that already undergone by them and at the same time maintaining the fine imposed upon them. 5. Resultantly, the conviction of the appellants as ordered by the trial Court is maintained. However, their substantive sentences of imprisonment are reduced to that already undergone by them. They shall, however, be required to pay the fine imposed upon them by the trial Court.