JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Mishra-I,J. 1. Heard Sri Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Sri S.K. Upadhyaya- learned counsel for the informant and the learned AGA for the State and perused the record. 2. By way of instant criminal appeal, challenge has been made to the validity and sustainability of the judgment and order of conviction dated 25.01.1988 passed by Special Judge (Anti- Dacoity), Jalaun at Orai, in Sessions Trial No.102 of 1986 (State Vs. Chandrabhan Singh and others), arising out of case crime no.43 of 1986, Police Station- Madhogarh, District- Jalaun at Orai, whereby accused appellants- Chandrabhan Singh, Suresh and Mahesh- have been sentenced to six months R.I., 2 years R.I. and 5 years R.I., under Sections 323/34, 324/34, 325/34 IPC, respectively. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 3. Brief facts of the prosecution case, as discernible from record and reflected in the written report Exhibit Ka-1 is that on 22.3.1986 at about 9 a.m. complainant/informant- Narendra Singh- was going to Madhogarh market with six quintals of 'Gur' laden on the bullock-cart from his house situated in village Kursenda. As soon as the complainant/informant arrived near his grove accused- Chandrabhan Singh- armed with an axe and accused- Suresh and Mahesh- armed with lathi came across him and remarked that it was a good opportunity to finish the complainant, and they should beat him and he will be spared. Being apprehensive of danger the complainant tried to run away from the scene but accused- Suresh and Mahesh- gave him lathi blows, as result of which, he fell down, and in the meanwhile accused Chandrabhan also struck him with the axe which hit the upper portion of the left hand above the elbow. On alarm being raised by the complainant, witnesses Jagdish Singh and Dinesh Singh of the same village rushed to the spot, challenged the accused and rescued the complainant and the accused ran away towards the village but extended threat to finish the informant/complainant if he tried to lodge any report anywhere. 4. Thereafter, informant- Narendra Singh got a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) lodged at Police Station- Madhogrh, district- Jalaun at Orai on 22.3.1986. 4. Thereafter, informant- Narendra Singh got a written report (Exhibit Ka-1) lodged at Police Station- Madhogrh, district- Jalaun at Orai on 22.3.1986. Initially, contents of the written report were taken down in the concerned Check FIR at Case Crime No.43 of 1986, under Sections 324, 504 and 506 IPC on 22.03.1986 at 10.45 A.M., Police Station- Madhogarh, District- Jalaun at OIrai. Check FIR is Exhibit Ka-4. On the basis of entry made in the Check FIR, a case was registered against the accused- appellants in the concerned General Diary (Rapat No.18 dated 22.3.1986) of same date at aforesaid case crime number and time. Copy of the concerned General Diary is Exhibit Ka-5. 5. The investigation of the case was handed over to S.I. Bhujvir Singh P.W.6. Investigating Officer inspected the scene of occurrence and prepared the site plan, Exhibit Ka-6, besides recording statement of various witnesses. After completing necessary formalities, he submitted charge-sheet (Exhibit Ka-8) against the accused under Sections 394 and 397 IPC. 6. Proceeding of the case was committed to the court of Sessions. As a sequel to that, this case was made over for trial and disposal to the court of Special Judge (Anti- Dacoity), Jalaun at Orai. Appellants were heard on point of charge and the trial court was, prima facie, satisfied with the case against the accused-appellants. Therefore, it framed charges against the accused-appellants under Sections 394 and 397 IPC. Charges were read over and explained to the accused, who abjured charges and opted for trial. 7. The prosecution in order to prove guilt of the accused examined as many as six prosecution witnesses; P.W.1 Narendra Singh (informant), P.W.2 Dr. G.C. Agarwal, P.W.3 Jagdish Singh, P.W.4 Dr. Udai Pratap Singh, P.W. 5 Head Constable Ram Bahadur Singh and P.W.6 Sub- Inspector Bhujvir Singh (I.O.). 8. Except as above, no other testimony was adduced, therefore, evidence for the prosecution was closed and statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., wherein, he claimed to have been falsely implicated in this case due to enmity. 9. The defence did not lead any evidence whatsoever. 10. Thereafter, the matter was posted for argument pros and cons between the parties and after considering the entire case on its merit after marshaling of facts and evaluating evidence so adduced, the learned trial court recorded aforesaid finding of conviction and imposed aforesaid sentences against the appellants. 11. 9. The defence did not lead any evidence whatsoever. 10. Thereafter, the matter was posted for argument pros and cons between the parties and after considering the entire case on its merit after marshaling of facts and evaluating evidence so adduced, the learned trial court recorded aforesaid finding of conviction and imposed aforesaid sentences against the appellants. 11. Consequently, this appeal. 12. It would be relevant to take note of fact that in this case Sri S.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the informant engaged attention of this Court to the joint affidavit filed by Narendra Singh (informant in this case) and Mahesh Singh, whereby, it has been brought to the notice that the dispute is, inter se, between the family members of the same family/branch, which culminated into passing of the aforesaid judgment and order of conviction. Now peace has prevailed and difference between the parties sunk and compromise reached. 13. In para nos.3 and 4 relevant averments have been made by the aforesaid two deponents shows that the parties have settled differences between them. Keeping in view the intention of both the parties and also keeping in view the fact that apart from Section 324 IPC, the other two Sections of Indian Penal Code under Sections 323 and 325 IPC, are compoundable, therefore, in so far as the plea of compromise in respect of the aforesaid two offences (under Sections 323 and 325 IPC) are concerned plea of compromsie is sustained. Then, would be in the fitness of things that merit of Section 324 IPC should be looked into at this stage. 14. In this view of the matter, the joint submission of both the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the informant is to be contemplated and weighed in order to do real and substantive justice. 15. In the wake of the joint submission raised by both learned counsel for the appellants and the informant and considering the interest of justice and its ramifications when conviction recorded under Section 323/34 and 325/34 IPC has not been opposed, if the sentence imposed under Section 324 IPC is modified and confined to the extent and ambit of fine only and the imprisonment part of the sentence is shield off that would in the fitness of things serve cause of justice. 16. Heard learned AGA. 17. 16. Heard learned AGA. 17. In view of above, the sentence of 2 years R.I. imposed on the appellants is modified to the extent of fine Rs.500/- each, which amount of fine shall be deposited within a period of one month from the date of this order. 18. However, in so far as the other Sections of Indian Penal Code i.e. 323/34 and 325/34 IPC are concerned, an affidavit of compromise has been filed by none other than the informant himself, who is represented by his counsel and at this stage, has no objection if the compromise is accepted and acted upon. 19. In view of above, conviction recorded under Sections 323/34, 325/34 IPC, (which are compoundable offence), is hereby set aside and the appellants are acquitted of charges under Section 323/34 IPC and Section 325/34 IPC. 20. In view of above, this appeal succeeds partly in aforesaid terms. 21. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the lower court for its intimation and follow-up action.