ORDER 1. Delay in filing application for restoration in SLP (Criminal) No.6371 of 2010 is condoned. 2. Application for restoration is allowed. 3. Accordingly, the special leave petition is restored to its original number. 4. Leave granted in both the matters. 5. Respondent No.2 Chaman Lal S/o Piare Lal and Respondent No.5 Jagdish Kumar S/o Banarsi Das along with Raghu Nath, Ashok Kumar, Narinder Kumar and Mohinder Kumar were prosecuted for offences under Sections 148 and 326, 325, 324 and 323 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Court acquitted Mohinder Kumar but convicted the other five accused and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for five years under Section 326 r/w Section 149 IPC, two years under Section 325 r/w Section 149 IPC, six months under Section 148 IPC and three months under Section 323 read with Section 149 IPC. The Appellate Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the sentence to three years from a period of five years under Section 326 r/w Section 149 IPC. Questioning the conviction and sentence, the accused filed a revision petition before the High Court. The complainant filed a criminal revision for enhancement of the sentence of the accused. The High Court maintained the conviction but directed release of the accused on probation under Section 360 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'the Code') by taking into account the fact that the incident occurred in the year 1985. 6. Vide Order dated 14th February, 2008, this Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. This Court held that Section 360 of the Code is not applicable for an offence which carries a sentence of life imprisonment. By referring to a judgment in Jagdev Singh v. State of Punjab (1974) 3 SCC 412 , this Court observed that Section 360 has no application to the facts of the case. 7. On remand, the High Court held that Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act can be applied to the facts of the case as the incident took place about 23-1/2 years ago and no useful purpose will be served by sending the accused to jail at that stage. The High Court observed that the accused had not indulged in any further criminal activity since the date of their conviction in this case. The High Court observed that the accused had not indulged in any further criminal activity since the date of their conviction in this case. The High Court further directed the accused to pay Rs. 75,000/- as compensation to the complainant. 8. Aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, the complainant and the State have preferred these appeals. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the High court committed a serious error in applying the Probation of Offenders Act to the instant case which is impermissible in law. According to him, the accused committed a serious crime by indulging in an offence falling under Section 326 IPC. The father of the appellant Pindi Dass and the brother of the appellant Ramesh Das had received serious injuries. The injuries suffered by Pindi Dass are as under : 1. There was reddish colouration with swelling and deformity of the left wrist joint. X- ray was advised. 2. Reddish contusion 6 cms x 2 cms in the middle of the left fore-arm. X-ray was advised. 3. 1/1/2 cms x 1/2 cm skin deep incised wound 5 cms above the right wrist joint. 4. 1/1/2 cms x cm reddish abrasion in the middle of the right leg anteriorly. 5. 2/1/2 cms x 1 cm incised wound in the middle of the left leg, bleeding was present. There was deformity of the under-line bone. X-ray was advised. 6. 5 cms x 2 cms reddish contusion on the medial side of the left knee joint. X-ray was advised. 7. Lacerated wound 1/1/2 cms x 1 cm skin deep 12 cms below the left knee joint. 9. The injuries suffered by Ramesh Dass are as under: 1. 4 cms x 1/2 cm skin deep lacorated wound on the occipital area of skull, bleeding was present. X-ray was advised. 2. There was swelling with red colouration over the left wrist joint. X-ray was advised. 3. 8 cms x 4 cms reddish contusion on the back of the left elbow joint. X-ray was advised. 4. 10 cms x 3 cms reddish contusion in the middle of the outer side of the left arm. 5. Swelling with reddish contusion in the lower half of right fore arm. X-ray was advised. 6. Diffused swelling over the dorsem of the fingers of the right hand. X-ray was advised. 7. There was diffused swelling over the right foot and right ankle joint. 5. Swelling with reddish contusion in the lower half of right fore arm. X-ray was advised. 6. Diffused swelling over the dorsem of the fingers of the right hand. X-ray was advised. 7. There was diffused swelling over the right foot and right ankle joint. X-ray was advised. 8. 13 cms x 1/2 cm reddish abrasion on the skin of the left leg. 9. Two paralled contusions on the outer side of the left thigh. 10. 1 cm x 1/2 cm abrasion on the dosel bone. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that no mercy need be shown by this Court and the respondents/accused are liable for conviction and suitable sentence should be imposed on them. 11. Learned counsel for the respondents/accused submits that the incident took place on 19th November, 1985. respondents/accused are sick and they have family responsibilities and so a lenient view may be taken. 12. There is no dispute that an offence under Section 326 IPC which carries a sentence of life imprisonment cannot be compounded either under Section 360 Cr.P.C. or under Section 4 of the Act. In view of the observations made by this Court when the matter was remitted back, the High Court ought not to have applied the Act in view of the settled law. 13. We have seen the evidence on record and we have no reason to set aside the conviction of the respondents/accused. But taking into account the other factors like the passage of time from the date of the incident, the age and health condition of the respondents, we sentence them till the rising of Court. Taking into account the serious injuries caused to the father and brother of the appellant, we enhance the amount of compensation directed by the High Court from Rs. 75,000/- to Rs. 5 Lakhs. The amount of compensation directed to be paid by the respondents/accused shall be deposited in the Trial Court within a period of eight weeks from today. 14. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. 15. Pending applications also stand disposed of.