JUDGMENT Gopal Prasad, J.- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellant No. 2 Chandan Kumar Sah has been convicted for offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and rest appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. 3: Learned counsel for the appellants however contends that both parties have entered into compromise and compromise petition has already been filed in the lower Court itself. even though, conviction recorded under Section 323 and. 324, I.P.C., but compromise petition was not effected and order of conviction and sentence was recorded without taking into consideration the compromise petition between the parties having been filed. Though, learned trial Court mentioned in para 19 of judgment to brush aside the compromise petition on the ground that offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is not compoundable. 4. However, learned counsel for the respondents also appeared in this case has not disputed the fact that compromise petition has been filed in the lower Court. 5. From perusal of the record. it appears that informant and the appellants are full brothers and occurrence took place 'with regard to cut of bamboo tree from bamboo plunk and dispute with regard to the bamboo clump. Subsequently parties entered into compromise and have no grievance with each other. 6. However, having regard to the fact it is true that offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is not compoundable. but having regard to the fact that learned trial Court held that offence under Section 307. I.P.C. is not made out and has convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 324 and 323. I.P.C. and both are compoundable with permission of the Court. However, Section 324. I.P.C. is compoundable with the permission of the person who heard it cost. Here the allegation of assault by farsa is on the informant Tulshi Narayan Sah and hence since the Tulshi Narayan Sah filed a compromise petition with signature and hence the trial Court convicted the appellant for offence under Section 324, I.P.C. but did not take into consideration before conviction under Section 324. I.P.C. and did not take into consideration the compromise petition, though. in para 19 observed that Section 307. I.P.C. is not compoundable. 7. I.P.C. and did not take into consideration the compromise petition, though. in para 19 observed that Section 307. I.P.C. is not compoundable. 7. However, having regard to the fact since offence under Section 307, I.P.C. having not established and no conviction recorded under Section 307. I.P.C. Hence when the conviction has been recorded under Section 324, I.P.C. then instead of sentencing. the trial Court ought to have recorded compromise instead of sentencing the appellants. Hence under the fact and circumstance and in view of compromise, order of conviction and sentence recorded under Section 324, I.P.C. is hereby set aside. However, sentence recorded under Section 323. I.P.C. in view of the compromise is hereby set aside. 8. However, it is pertinent to mention that occurrence is of the year 1991 and twenty years has already been elapsed and under the fact and circumstance appellants are also entitle for benefit under Section 360, Cr.P.C. as well as 3 and 4 of Probation of Offenders Act. 9. Having regard to the fact good relation prevail between the parties and parties have entered into compromise petition. hence order of conviction and sentence recorded under Section 323 and 324, I.P.C. is hereby set aside and offence compounded in view of compromise petition. Hence the appeal is allowed in part. Appeal partly allowed.