JUDGMENT AND ORDER : This revision is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.05.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge (FTC), Lakhimpur in Crl. Appeal No. 21(3)/2004 affirming the judgment and order dated 05.08.2004 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur, in GR Case No. 152/1999 convicting the accused petitioner under section 326/323 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to imprisonment for three years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) with a default clause. 2. Heard Mr. S. Katakey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. N.K. Kalita, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, Assam. 3. It is contended inter alia by the accused petitioner that another case at the instance of the present accused petitioner was registered vide G.R Case No. 149/1999 under section 447/323 of the IPC and in that case charge sheet was filed and the accused was acquitted by the court in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The present case was also sought to be compounded but since the offence under section 326 of the IPC is a non-compoundable offence compromise could not be given effect to. 4. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel submits that the evidence on record was not properly appreciated by the courts below and the omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the witnesses were not considered. It is further submitted that although the injured and the accused filed a joint compromise petition before the trial court but that was rejected as the offence was not compoundable. They have again filed a joint compromise petition before this court stating therein that they are the members of the same family and they have settled the matter amicably and the injured is not interested to proceed further with the case. He strenuously contends that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties the proceedings be quashed in exercise of the power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Mr. Kalita, learned Addl. He strenuously contends that in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties the proceedings be quashed in exercise of the power under section 482 of the Cr.P.C. 5. Mr. Kalita, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, in controversion, submits that the present revision is filed challenging the order of conviction passed by the CJM and affirmed by the appellate court and although it appears to have been filed under section 397/401 read with section 482 of the Cr.P.C., it is virtually a revision against the order of conviction and quashment of the proceedings is not permissible even though compromise is arrived at between the parties. However, he fairly submits that since the accused and the injured have amicably settled the case outside the court, a lenient view may be taken while passing the sentence against him. He further submits that there was concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts below and revisional interference is uncalled for. 6. It is a settled proposition of law that ordinarily it is not open to the High Court in its revisional jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent finding of facts arrived at by the courts, unless it is shown that the evidence on record was misread by the courts or was not properly appreciated. In the present case, the injured who has been examined as P. W. 2 categorically stated that on the day of occurrence a quarrel took place between him and the accused and the accused came with a dao and struck him on his head as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. He was immediately shifted to Gauhati Medical College & Hospital for treatment. His evidence is corroborated by the eye witnesses, P.W. 1 and P.W. 4. The doctor who examined the injured in the North Lakhimpur Civil Hospital where the injured was initially taken has been examined as P.W. 5. On examination he found the following injury : “One incised wound on right parietal area of the head dividing completely the scalp and skull bone. The brain matters protruded. Fresh bleeding was present. The patient was referred to Neurological Centre at Guwahati Medical College and Hospital.” 7. The doctor opined that injuries were caused by sharp weapon and were grievous in nature. The evidence of the Doctor has not been controverted as he corroborated the evidence of the injured. 8. The brain matters protruded. Fresh bleeding was present. The patient was referred to Neurological Centre at Guwahati Medical College and Hospital.” 7. The doctor opined that injuries were caused by sharp weapon and were grievous in nature. The evidence of the Doctor has not been controverted as he corroborated the evidence of the injured. 8. The evidence of the injured coupled with the evidence of the eye witnesses and corroborated by medical evidence establish beyond doubt that the accused caused grievous injuries to the injured with a dao on his scalp. Both the learned courts below arrived at the findings on careful scrutiny of the entire evidence on record and I do not find any reason to disagree with the findings so arrived at concurrently by the courts. I also do not find any infirmity in the judgment of the appellate court calling for interference in this revision. 9. At this stage, Mr. Katakey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the compromise has been arrived at and the alleged occurrence took place more than 17 years back, the benevolent provision of Probation of Offenders’ Act or Section 360 of the Cr.P.C. may be extended to the accused petitioner. 10. Mr. Kalita, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor submits that the punishment prescribed under section 326 of the IPC is upto imprisonment for life or with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to pay fine and as such neither provisions of Section 3 or 4 of the Probation of Offenders’ Act or 360 of the Cr.P.C. can be applied in the instant case. However, he submits that a lenient view may be taken while passing the sentence. 11. The accused and the injured are from the same family and it appears that the accused also filed a case against the informant for causing injuries to his mother and in that case the informant was acquitted by the court in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. The prayer for compromise in the instant case was rejected as the offence under section 326 IPC is not compoundable. It is submitted by Mr. Katakey that the parties have settled the case amicably and there is no enmity between them and sending the accused to jail at this stage would not serve any purpose. 12. The prayer for compromise in the instant case was rejected as the offence under section 326 IPC is not compoundable. It is submitted by Mr. Katakey that the parties have settled the case amicably and there is no enmity between them and sending the accused to jail at this stage would not serve any purpose. 12. Having regard to the submissions and the facts and circumstances of the case and the compromise arrived at between the parties and the fact that they are from the same family, I think that justice would be met if the accused is sentenced to imprisonment till rising of the Court and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), in default, to imprisonment for three months. Fine if realised shall be paid to the injured victim as compensation. 13. Accordingly, the accused is directed to surrender before the trial court forthwith to serve out the sentence. 14. With the above modification of sentence the revision stands dismissed. 15. Send down the LCR.