C.R. Sarma, J.:-- Heard Mr. BM Choudhury, learned counsel, appearing for the appellants and Mr. K. Munir, learned addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam, appearing for the State respondent. Also heard Mr. G. Uddin, leaned Counsel, appearing for the private respondent (informant). 2. By this a joint application (I.A. No.2232/2015), the victim and the accused applicants (i.e. the appellants in Crl. Appeal No.136 of 2012) have prayed for disposal of this appeal on compromise. 3. On 12.7.2009, an FIR was lodged with the I/C of Chapormukh (Raha Police Station), alleging that, on 11.7.2009 at about 8-30 pm, the accused appellant Nos.1 and 2 Mr. Hamid Ali Laskar and Md. Subhan Laskar called the elder brother of the informant, Md. Moinul Sheikh from his house and assaulted him by means of sharp weapon, causing injury to his person. On receipt of the FIR, police registered Raha P.S. Case No.93/2009 under Sections 307/326/34 IPC and launched investigation into the matter. At the close of investigation, police submitted charge sheet against the accused appellants. 4. As the offence is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions, the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nagaon committed the case to the court of Sessions. Accordingly, the learned Addl. Sessions (FTC), Nagaon framed charges under Section 307/326/34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused appellants, to which they pleaded not guilty. 5. The prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. 6. Considering the evidence on record, the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, FTC, Nagaon by the impugned judgment and order 05.07.2012, passed in Sessions Case No.323/2010, convicted the appellant, Shri Subhan Laskar under Section 323 IPC and sentenced him to suffer simple imprisonment for six months and pay fin of Rs. 500.00 in default to suffer S.I. for another period of one month for his conviction under Section 323 IPC. 7. Similarly, the learned trial Judge while convicting the appellant Mr. Hamid Laskar under Sections 326 IPC, sentenced him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and pay find of Rs. 5,000/- in default R.I. for 6 months. It was also ordered that the convicted persons shall be entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. in respect of the period, already undergone by them. 8. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted persons, as appellants preferred this Criminal Appeal No.136/2012 and the appeal has already been admitted. 9. It was also ordered that the convicted persons shall be entitled to the benefit of set off under Section 428 Cr.P.C. in respect of the period, already undergone by them. 8. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the convicted persons, as appellants preferred this Criminal Appeal No.136/2012 and the appeal has already been admitted. 9. Now, by this application, both the appellants and the victim have prayed for disposal of the appeal, on the ground that they have amicably settled the dispute between them. 10. The learned counsel, appearing for both the parties have submitted that both the parties are neighbourers and that they are now peacefully living in the society, after amicably settling their dispute and that continuance of the appeal, against the appellants, will adversely affect their relationship in the society. 11. Admittedly, the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable. The learned counsel for the appellants, referring to the decision held in the case of Jetha Ram and others v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 255 has submitted that, in view of the amicable settlement reached by both the parties, though the offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable, the appeal may be disposed of modifying the sentence. 12. In the above referred case, the appellant No.1 was convicted under Section 326 IPC and the appellant Nos.2 and 3 were convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC. They were sentenced to suffer R.I. for 2 years and pay fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment for 4 months. On appeal, preferred before the High Court, the sentence of imprisonment was modified to one year. However, conviction was maintained. 13. However, the appellant approached to the Supreme Court by preferring an appeal by special leave. The Supreme Court, while directing release of the appellant forthwith observed as follows: "4 Before this Court, the parties have filed a compromise petition. The offence under Section 326 IPC is not compoundable, as such it is not possible to record the compromise, but it is well settled that though compromise cannot be recorded for a non-compoundable offence, but the effect of compromise can be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence. The appellants have remained in custody for a period of about five months. The appellants have remained in custody for a period of about five months. In our view, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone. 14. In the present case, it is submitted that the appellants were in custody with effect from 10.11.2009 to 4.12.2009 i.e. for 24 (twenty four) days. 15. In view of the above, considering the entire aspect of the matter and keeping in mind the amicable settlement, reached between both the parties, I am of the opinion that, while maintaining the conviction under Section 326 IPC, for the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment should be reduced to the period already undergone by the appellants. As the offence under Section 323 IPC is a compoundable, the conviction of sentence awarded under Section 323 IPC can be set aside, and I do so. Accordingly, the sentence awarded under Section 326 IPC is modified to the period of detention, already undergone. With the above, the appeal is disposed of. The appellants' bail bonds shall stand discharged. No interference is made in respect of fine. 16. With the above direction, this I.A. is disposed of. 17. Return the LCR. --