JUDGMENT : Shree Chandrashekhar, J. 1. The appellant has suffered the judgment of conviction under section 324 and section 307 of the Indian Penal Code dated 11.01.1994 and the order of sentence of R.I for life under section 307 of the Indian Penal Code dated 12.01.1994 passed against him in Sessions Case No.79 of 1993/23 of 1993. No separate sentence for the offence under section 324 of the Indian Penal Code has been passed against him. 2. By an order dated 14.09.1994 the appellant was granted bail by this Court. Thereafter this matter appeared on Board on 12.12.2018. On that day no one appeared for the appellant and on subsequent dates of hearing of this appeal, that is, on 02.04.2019 and 24.04.2019 also no one appeared for the appellant. Accordingly, by order dated 02.04.2019 the bail granted to the appellant vide order dated 14.09.1994 was cancelled. Thereafter, Mr. Niranjan Kumar, the learned counsel appeared and he has filed vakalatnama on behalf of the appellant. 3. I.A No.7489 of 2019 was filed by the appellant seeking bail which was dismissed vide order dated 02.09.2019. Thereafter, Mr. Kumar Harsh, the learned counsel appeared for the appellant and stated that the matrimonial relationship between the parties has been restored. The complainant of this case is mother-in-law of the appellant but in the mean-time she has passed away. The wife of the appellant who was the pairokar of the complainant has joined him in her matrimonial home. 4. Now, I.A No.733 of 2020 has been filed by way of a compromise petition. This application is supported by affidavit of the appellant and his wife, namely, Manju Devi. They have also produced proof of their identification along with this application. In this application the parties have stated thus: “6. That after settlement i.e, 16.07.2006 one child was born and now he is 15 years namely Sujit Kumar, there is no dispute between the parties after settlement of the family dispute between the appellant and P.W.-3 (wife of the appellant). 7. That it is stated that during course of trial, total 09 witnesses have been examined including the informant who are as follows; PW.-1 is Bachho Devi, she is the independent witness and eye witnesses. PW.-2 is Shanti Devi she is the mother-in-law of the appellant she is died in 2010. PW.-3 is Manju Devi, she is the wife of the appellant. PW.-2 is Shanti Devi she is the mother-in-law of the appellant she is died in 2010. PW.-3 is Manju Devi, she is the wife of the appellant. PW.-4 is Guddi Kumari, she is the sister-in-law and appellant and she is died in the year 1995 as she was suffering from some disease. PW.-6 & 7 are the independent witnesses. They have turned hostile. PW.-8 is Dr. Sushil Kumar Goenka (Doctor). PW.-9 is Chandrashekhar Singh. He is the seizure witness but he has stated in his evidence that seizure list has not been prepared in his presence. 8. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that P.W.-2 who is the mother in law of the appellant in the instant case has expired in the year 2010 and P.W.-4 the other victim has also died in the year 1995 (approximately) due to some disease. P.W.-3 is the only surviving victim and they have reached amicable settlement. 9. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that P.W. 03 is herself the pairvikar in this appeal this itself shows that they have reached out to a settlement. 10. That the appellant and P.W. 03 Manju Devi were residing and enjoying happily life and there is no dispute between the appellant and the injured persons. 11. That due to intervention of the well-wishers and friends, the entire misunderstanding giving arise to the lodging of the instant criminal case has been sorted out between the appellant and P.W.-3. 12. That the entire dispute giving rise to the lodging of the connected criminal case against the appellant with PW-3 has been sorted out amicably by way of mutual understanding. 13. That it is most humbly stated and submitted that all the injury are simple in nature and all the injured persons are the family member of the appellant.” 5. Mr. Arun Kumar Pandey, the learned A.P.P states that by now the appellant has remained in custody for more than two years. 6. In “Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 896, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a compromise between the parties is one of the relevant factors for deciding quantum of punishment. 6. In “Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and Another” reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 896, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that a compromise between the parties is one of the relevant factors for deciding quantum of punishment. In view of the period of custody undergone by the appellant and a compromise between the parties, while the judgment of conviction under section 324 and section 307 of the Indian Penal Code dated 11.01.1994 passed against the appellant, namely, Kanhai Sah in Sessions Case No.79 of 1993/23 of 1993 is affirmed, the order of sentence dated 12.01.1994 inflicted upon him is set-aside. He is sentenced to the period of custody already undergone by him. 7. Accordingly, the appellant, above-named, who is in custody, shall be released forthwith if not required in connection to any other criminal case. 8. Criminal Appeal (D.B) No.110 of 1994 (P) is partly allowed, in the aforesaid terms. 9. I.A Nos.733 of 2020 and 1029 of 2020 stand disposed of. 10. Let lower-court records be sent to the court concerned forthwith.