JUDGMENT 1. - Instant criminal appeal has been filed by the appellant Yasin Khan S/o Sher Mohammad under Section 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated 22.7.1994 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Nohar in Sessions Case No. 12/1994 whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 326 I.P.C. for a term of one year simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, two months simple imprisonment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that an F.I.R. was registered under Section 307 read with Section 323/34 I.P.C. against the appellant and Khushi Mohammad upon statement of injured Ramzan PW-1 on 14.10.1993 at Police Station Bhirani, District Sriganganagar. After investigation police filed challan against the appellant as well as Khushi Mohammad for offence under Sections 307 and 323 read with 34 I.P.C. in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Bhadra from where case was committed to the Court of Additional District Judge, Nohar where trial took place. 3. To prove the prosecution case, in all statement of seven witnesses were recorded by the trial Court. Thereafter, statement of accused appellant as well as Khushi Mohammad were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and no defence witnesses were produced by the appellant. 4. As per allegation in the F,I.R., the complainant Ramzan alleged that on 14.1.1993 when he was eating food in his house, all of sudden his brother Mukhtar entered in the house and cried, at that time appellant as well as Khushi Mohammad were chasing him and they entered in the house with intention to commit crime and gave lathi blow to the brother of complainant Ramzan. 5. It is specifically stated in the F.I.R., the appellant inflicted head injury to the brother of complainant and due to injury, he became unconscious, and brought to the hospital. 6. 5. It is specifically stated in the F.I.R., the appellant inflicted head injury to the brother of complainant and due to injury, he became unconscious, and brought to the hospital. 6. In the trial, after recording statement of PW-1 Ramzan, author of F.I.R. so also PW-2 Mukhtar, PW-3 Ali Sher, PW-4 Gafoordin and PW-5 Manzoor Hussain a compromise was arrived in between the parties and said compromise deed was placed before the Court upon which trial Court acquitted the appellant as well as Khushi Mohammad from the offence under Sections 323 and 323/34 I.P.C. but for the reason that offence under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. are not compoundable offence, refused to accept compromise and proceeded with the trial and ultimately trial Court acquitted Khushi Mohammad and appellant from the charges levelled against him for offence under Sections 307 and 307/34 I.P.C. but convicted the appellant for offence under Section 326 I.P.C. 7. At the threshold learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this matter, compromise has already been arrived between the parties but offence under Sections 307 and 326 I.P.C. are not compoundable offence, therefore, there was no question for the trial Court to accept the compromise for the said offence but after completion of trial, the trial Court gave finding that no offence under Sections 307 and 307/34 I.P.C. is made out but held the appellant Yasin Khan guilty for offence under Section 326 I.P.C. 8. The trial Court punished the appellant fora term of one year simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- and refused to accept the plea of appellant for punishment for the term already undergone. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that matter has already been settled in between the parties and as per finding given by the trial Court, no offence under Section 307 I.P.C. was made out and ultimately compromise was arrived at in between the parties after recording statement of injured, therefore, conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is based upon statement of injured which was recorded prior to the compromise and trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. and refused to reduce the sentence already undergone. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 1821 , Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari & Ors. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant invited my attention towards the recent judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2011 SC 1821 , Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. , in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that incident is 20 years old, therefore, while confirming the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 307 read with 34 and Section 332 read with Section 34 and Section 353 read with 34 I.P.C., reduced the sentence to the period already undergone while maintaining the order of conviction. In the said case also, compromise was arrived at between the parties for the offence under Section 307 I.P.C. is not compoundable, therefore, matter was not compounded. In the present case also, compromise was arrived at between the parties and trial Court passed an order to acquit the appellant as well as Khushi Mohammad for the offence under Sections 323 and 323/34 I.P.C., therefore, in this case also, same benefit may be granted to the appellant and sentenced awarded by the trial Court may be reduced to the already undergone. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the offence occurred in the year 1993 and near about two decades passed, therefore, to secure the ends of justice, the sentence awarded by the trial Court may be reduced to the period already undergone. 12. Learned Public Prosecutor vehemently opposed the prayer and submits that as per evidence on record, it cannot be said that the offence under Section 326 I.P.C. is not made out against the appellant because he has assaulted the injured Mukhtar PW-2 and inflicted injury upon his head, therefore, the plea taken by the appellant for reducing the sentence does not require to be interfered. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record and considered the facts available on record so also the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari (supra). 14. 13. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire record and considered the facts available on record so also the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari (supra). 14. Admittedly, in this case, compromise was arrived at between the parties, after recording statement of injured in the trial Court, the trial Court accepted the compromise for the offence under Sections 323 and 323/34 I.P.C. and acquitted the appellant as well as accused Khushi Mohammad from the aforesaid charges but ultimately, gave finding that although prosecution has failed to prove the case for offence under Section 307 or 307/34 I.P.C. but there is evidence on record to prove the fact of offence under Section 326 I.P.C. because PW-2 Mukhtar received grievous injuries. 15. It is undisputed that the incident is of the year 1993 and compromise was arrived at between the parties during trial and for the offence which is not compoundable, the Court gave finding that offence under Sections 307 and 307/34 I.P.C. is not made out and acquitted the co-accused Khushi Mohammad and appellant for the charge of Sections 307, 307/34 I.P.C. but convicted the appellant for offence under Section 326 I.P.C. In my opinion, the circumstances of this case loudly speaks that case of the appellant for reducing sentence falls tinder the adjudication made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari (supra) in which following adjudication has been made by the Hon'ble Supreme. Court : "We must immediately state that the offence under Section 307 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and, therefore, compounding of the offence in the present case is out of question. However, the circumstances pointed out by the learned senior counsel do persuade us for a lenient view in regard to the sentence. The incident occurred on 17.5.1991 and it is almost twenty years since then. The appellants are agriculturists by occupation and have no' previous criminal background. There has been reconciliation amongst parties; the relations between the appellants and the victim have become cordial and prior to the appellants' surrender, the parties have been living peacefully in the village. The appellants have already undergone the sentence of more than two and a half years. The appellants are agriculturists by occupation and have no' previous criminal background. There has been reconciliation amongst parties; the relations between the appellants and the victim have become cordial and prior to the appellants' surrender, the parties have been living peacefully in the village. The appellants have already undergone the sentence of more than two and a half years. Having regard to these circumstances, we are satisfied that ends of justice will be met if the substantive sentence awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone while maintaining the amount of fine." 16. In view of above, I deem it appropriate to reduce the sentence of appellant from one year to the period already undergone by him while maintaining the fine imposed by the trial Court. 17. Consequently, this appeal is partly allowed. The judgment impugned is hereby modified and sentence awarded to the appellant for offence under Section 326 I.P.C. for the period of sentence of one year simple imprisonment is reduced to the, period already undergone while maintaining the fine imposed by trial Court upon the appellant. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby discharged.Appeal partly allowed. *******