JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against appellants' conviction, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-6, Nashik, for the offence punishable under Sections 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- or in default rigorous imprisonment for three months, imposed upon both the appellants, on the conclusion of Sessions Case No.206 of 2009, before him. 2. The facts which are material for deciding this appeal are as under:- The victim Abid Pathan seems to have advanced some amount to accused No.1 Sajid. Abid Pathan demanded refund of that amount and there was altercation on 5.02.2009, at about 5.00 p.m. on that account near Hotel Basera, Central Bus stand, Nashik. The victim Abid Pathan was proceeding towards his house. When he reached road in front of Kulsum Manzil, accused Sajid came down and caught hold of Abid, accused No.2 Zahid came from front side holding a knife in his hand. Accused No.2 Zahid assaulted Abid on the backside with knife. Since commotion took place and neighbours rushed, both accused persons ran away. Abid's wife Husna Pathan carried Abid to hospital and gave report, whereupon an offence was registered and investigation commenced. 3. Abid Pathan was discharged from hospital against medical advice. In the course of investigation police recorded statements of the witnesses, obtained medical certificates, performed necessary panchnamas and on completion of investigation sent charge-sheet to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nashik after having arrested accused persons. 4. The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions at Nashik. The learned Additional Sessions Judge to whom the case was made over, charged two appellants of the offences punishable under Sections 307, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 37(1) read with Section 135 of the Bombay Police Act. Since the appellants pleaded not guilty to the charge framed, they were put on trial at which the prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses in its attempt to bring home guilt of the appellants. 5. After considering the evidence in the light of defence raised, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby the appellants are before this Court. 6. 5. After considering the evidence in the light of defence raised, the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned. Aggrieved thereby the appellants are before this Court. 6. The appellant Sajid accused No.1 has been admitted to bail by order dated 9th January, 2012 and the appellant Zahid who was the author of the injuries is still injail. The victim Abid has filed an affidavit stating that the victim and the appellants are residing in the same neighbourbood for several years and they want to live peacefully. They state that they have no grudge and therefore, in view amicable resolution of the dispute, they do not want to proceed with the proceedings and therefore seek appropriate orders in the appeal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the offence is purely on account of some personal disputes between the parties and has no bearing on the law and order or harm to the society. Therefore, according to him the sentences imposed on the appellants may be reduced to that already undergone. When this submission was made before this Court (Coram: Abhay Thipsay, J.), he had ascertained from the parties that they have settled the matter amicably due to intervention of the elders in the family. This has been recorded in the order dated 15th June, 2012. 8. The learned APP for the State sought time to go through the evidence and to make appropriate submissions with respect to reduction in sentence: In view of the settlement, the Investigating officer had also contacted the victim and ascertained that the compromise was brought about voluntarily. The report of Investigating Officer is taken on record. 9. The learned APP points out that the injuries sustained by Abid were incised wound 5½ cm x 1 cm x muscle deep on the right parietal region, on the head near the occipital region, incised wound 7 x 2 x 1 cm, on the neck Left side, incised wound 5 x 2 x 1 cm, on the left hand, incised wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm on the backside of left ear. He submits that the injury on the neck would show intention to inflict fatal blow. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact the victim had taken discharge against the medical advice as can be seen from the medical certificate marked as Exh.29. He submits that the injury on the neck would show intention to inflict fatal blow. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in fact the victim had taken discharge against the medical advice as can be seen from the medical certificate marked as Exh.29. The victim had stated that from Civil Hospital he had gone to Shah Hospital and from there to Metro Hospital and from there to Sahyadri Hospital and from there to Life Line hospital and that he was hospitalized for about 10 days. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that had the injuries been serious, the victim would not have been discharged within 10 days. In any case he submits that since the parties are neighbours and the incident occurred on account of paltry dispute, in view of the settlement reached between the parties the appeal may be allowed by reducing sentence to that already undergone. In support of the same learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Rajendra Harakchand Bhandari & ors vs. State of Maharashtra and anr, reported in 2011 (13) SCC 311 : [2011 ALL MR (Cril 1641 (S.C.)], where in similar circumstance the Hon'ble Supreme Court had taken same view. 11. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. Though the part of body of Abid on which injury was inflicted by appellant Zahid, was delicate part which could have led death of victim Abid, the victim was discharged within 10 days after he was cured. The offence has no implication on the society and the parties have amicably settled the dispute. In view of this no useful purpose would be served by asking the appellant No.1 Sajid Walimohammad Shaikh to go back to prison and further detain the appellant No.2 Zahid in prison. Zahid is stated to have been in prison for 1½ year, appellant Sajid was in jail for about four months. As already indicated the role of Sajid is only instigation whereas Zahid has actually inflicted blows by knife. In view of this the appeal is partly allowed. Zahid is stated to have been in prison for 1½ year, appellant Sajid was in jail for about four months. As already indicated the role of Sajid is only instigation whereas Zahid has actually inflicted blows by knife. In view of this the appeal is partly allowed. The conviction of the appellants for the offences punishable under Section 307 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code is maintained and the sentences imposed upon both the appellants are reduced to the period already undergone while increasing fine from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.5,000/- or in default further imprisonment for a period of three months. If the fine is not deposited by appellant Sajid within a period of two months, the learned Additional Sessions Judge shall have arrested and committed Sajid Walimohammad to prison to serve sentence and if the fine amount is deposited by Zahid, he may be set at liberty if not wanted in any other case. 12. Criminal Application No.630 of 2012 for suspension of sentence by appellant Zaid is also disposed of accordingly. Appeal partly allowed.