ORDER 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 11.10.2011 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, whereby Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2008 filed by the Appellants has been partly allowed their conviction for offences punishable under Sections 323, 459 - and 459/34 Indian Penal Code set aside but their conviction for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the Appellants affirmed, 3. When the matter came up before us on 21.8.2012, Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, senior advocate, appearing for the Appellants drew our attention to an application filed by the Appellants seeking permission to place on record additional documents according to which the victim of the offences allegedly committed by the Appellants had entered into a compromise/settlement with the Appellants whereby all the disputes between them stood settled amicably including the case at hand. This Court further noticed that the victim Smt. Sangeeta was not a party to these proceedings nor had anyone appeared on her behalf to support the averments made in the alleged compromise deed. In the -circumstances, it became necessary to direct that the genuineness of the compromise/settlement referred to in the application filed by the Appellants be verified by the trial court and a report submitted to this Court. This Court further directed that the trial court shall ensure that the victim is properly identified and her statement regarding the settlement recorded. 4. Pursuant to the above direction the trial Court summoned the victim Smt. Sangeeta, recorded her statement and submitted its report dated 10.09.2012 to this Court. A reading of the above report shows that the compromise referred to in the application by the Appellants is genuine and that the same has been signed by the victim Smt. Sangeeta without any fear or inducement. The report further suggests that the victim does not want to pursue the proceedings any further. The trial court has forwarded the statement of the victim recorded by it for the perusal of this Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the victim Smt. Sangeeta supports the report submitted by the Trial Court. 5. Mr. The report further suggests that the victim does not want to pursue the proceedings any further. The trial court has forwarded the statement of the victim recorded by it for the perusal of this Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the victim Smt. Sangeeta supports the report submitted by the Trial Court. 5. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad argued that the parties, namely, the Appellants and the victim belong to the same village and are neighbours and that the settlement arrived at between them gives a quietus to all disputes that had led to the incident in question. He urged that out of a sentence of five years awarded to the Appellants, Appellant Mukesh has already undergone four years and three months, while the remaining Appellants, namely, Vijendra Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Jhabarmal have undergone 91/2 months sentence each. He submitted that in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the fact that one of the Appellants has already undergone a substantial part of the sentence awarded to him, this Court could allow the prayer for composition of the offences or in the alternative reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by them. He further argued that the High Court having disbelieved the version of the prosecution that the injury caused to the victim Smt. Sangeeta resulting in the loss of her vision was caused by a sharp edged weapon and having found that the said injury could have been caused by a stone Hung at her, the conviction of the Appellants under Section 326 read with Section 34 was not sustainable. He referred in particular to the following passage from the impugned judgment in this regard: So far as injury found in the eye of Smt. Sangeeta is concerned it is grievous in nature as it caused permanent loss of vision in her right eye. According to the Eye-Specialist, the injury could result by a sharp edged or blunt weapon. Thus, there is every possibility that the injury found in the eye of Smt. Sangeeta was caused by a stone thrown by one of the Appellants. 6. The above finding, argued Mr. Prasad, would justify alteration of the conviction from one under Section326 read with Section 34 to Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. Thus, there is every possibility that the injury found in the eye of Smt. Sangeeta was caused by a stone thrown by one of the Appellants. 6. The above finding, argued Mr. Prasad, would justify alteration of the conviction from one under Section326 read with Section 34 to Section 325/34 of the Indian Penal Code. 7. The High Court has, it is evident from the passage extracted above, disbelieved the prosecution version that the injury to the right eye of the victim Smt. Sangeeta was caused by a sharp edged weapon. The High Court has taken the view that there was a possibility of the injury-sustained by the victim being the result of a stone thrown by one of the Appellants, It is also not in dispute that the incident arose out of exchange of hot words and a scuffle that ensued. That being so and keeping in view the nature of the injury and the evidence on record the Appellants could in our opinion be convicted more appropriately under Section 325 read with Section 34 instead of Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The alteration indicated above would not in substance make any difference for purposes of the prayer for compounding of the offences, with which the Appellants were charged and eventually convicted That is so because apart from Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code now altered to Section 325 read with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code the Appellants have been convicted by the Courts below for the offence punishable under Section 324 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court has while upholding the Appellant's conviction under the said provision observed: It is also clear that in furtherance of common intention of the Appellants, the accused-Appellant Mukesh inflicted a simple injury by a sharp edged weapon to the complainant Murarilal and thus he and remaining Appellants have rightly been convicted for offence under Section 324 and 324/34 Indian Penal Code respectively. 8. The Court has not sentenced the Appellants to imprisonment for the offence punishable under Section 324read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code separately as the sentence awarded for the offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code was considered enough. The fact, however, remains that the Appellants stand convicted for a non-compoundable offence. The fact, however, remains that the Appellants stand convicted for a non-compoundable offence. The settlement/compromise and the prayer for composition based on the same, therefore, remains inconsequential in the light of the judgment of this Court in Ram Lal and Anr. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir : (1999) 2 SCC 213 , where this Court has held that an offence can be compounded only if it is compoundable no matter the Court may take into consideration the settlement between the parties while awarding sentence to the Appellants. The following passage is apposite in this regard: 3. ...Section 320 which deals with "compounding of offences'" provides two Tables therein, one containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded by the person mentioned in it, and the other containing descriptions of offences which can be compounded with the permission of the court by the persons indicated therein. Only such offences as are included in the said two Tables can be compounded and none else. Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 imposes a legislative ban in the following terms: 320(9) No offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section. 4. It is apparent that when the decision in Mahesh Chand was rendered, the attention of the learned Judges was not drawn to the aforesaid legal prohibition. Nor was the attention of the learned Judges who rendered the decision in Y. Suresh Babu drawn. Hence those were decisions rendered per incuriam. We hold that an offence which law declares to be non-compoundable even with the permission of the court cannot be compounded at all. the offence under Section 326 Indian Penal Code is, admittedly, non-compoundable and hence we cannot accede to the request of the learned Counsel to permit the same to be compounded. 5. However, considering the fact that the parties have come to a settlement and the victims have no grievance now and considering the further fact that the first Appellant has already undergone a period of imprisonment of about six months, a lenient view can be taken and the sentence can be reduced to the period which he has already undergone. We order so and direct the jail authorities to set him at liberty forthwith. 9. We order so and direct the jail authorities to set him at liberty forthwith. 9. We, accordingly, allow this appeal but only in part and to the extent that instead of Section 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code the Appellants are held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 325 both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. We further direct that in the light of the settlement that has been arrived at between the parties, the period already undergone by the Appellants would suffice. The judgment and order passed by the High Court is in that view modified and the sentence awarded to the Appellants reduced to the period already undergone. This appeal is allowed in part and to the extent indicated above.