JUDGMENT : Rajnesh Oswal, J. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.08.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jammu (hereinafter to be referred as the trial court), whereby the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have been convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- each for commission of offences under section 326 RPC. In default of making the payment of fine, the appellants No.1 & 2 have been ordered to further undergo imprisonment for one month. The appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have been further sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for commission of offence under section 323 RPC. In default of making the payment of fine, the appellants Nos.1 & 2 have been further ordered to undergo imprisonment for fifteen days. So far as appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, the learned trial court, sentenced them for a period of six months and to pay of fine of Rs. 500/- each for commission of offence under section 326 RPC. In default of making the payment of fine, the appellants No. 3 & 4 have been further ordered to undergo imprisonment for one month. The appellant Nos. 3 and 4 have been further sentenced to imprisonment for one month and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- each for commission of offence under section 323 RPC. In default of making the payment of fine, the appellant Nos. 3 & 4 have further been ordered to undergo imprisonment for fifteen days. 2. The aforesaid judgment and order have been impugned by the appellants on the grounds that the learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence in its right perspective and has ignored the material irregularities and improvements made by the witnesses during their depositions before the trial court. 3. It requires to be noted that during the pendency of the present appeal, appellant No. 1 expired, whereas the appellant No. 3 too after the admission of the instant appeal has not appeared before this Court, so taking into consideration the law laid down by Apex Court in Bani Singh v. State of Utter Pradesh, 1996 (4) SCC 720 and Mohd. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam 2011(4) SCC 729 , this Court sought assistance of Mr. Sukur Ali v. State of Assam 2011(4) SCC 729 , this Court sought assistance of Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel for the appellants 1, 2 and 4, for considering the appeal on behalf of the appellant No. 3 as well because the allegations as well as the evidence against the appellant Nos. 3 & 4 are identical in nature. Further, during the pendency of the appeal, the complainant-injured has entered into a compromise with appellant Nos. 2 and 4. The said compromise has been placed on record but the appellant No. 3 is not party to the said compromise. However, the complainant-victim appeared before this Court and made a statement at the bar on 10.10.2019 that he has no grievance even against the appellant No. 3. 4. Mr. Sunil Sethi, learned senior counsel has vehemently argued that there were material contradictions in the prosecution evidence but the learned trial court has not considered the same. He further argued that all the witnesses have admitted that there was a rivalry between the parties with regard to the some land and further that all the witnesses associated with the investigation were interested witnesses, so the false implications of the appellants, cannot be ruled out. Lastly, he submitted that the appellant Nos. 2 & 4 and complainant have amicably settled the dispute due to intervention of ‘biradri’ members and even compromise to that extent has also been placed on record. 5. Mr. Aseem Sawhney, learned AAG appearing for the State has vehemently argued that the learned trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has come to the conclusion with regard to the commission of the offences by the appellants and the dispute with regard to the land was in fact a motive on the part of the appellants to commit the offences for which they have been rightly convicted and sentenced. 6. Heard and perused the original record of the trial court. 7. Allegations as they emerge from the charge sheet are that FIR bearing No. 52/1998 was registered against the appellants for commission of offence under section 307/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act pursuant to the report lodged by Amarjeet Kour, in which it was stated that her husband-Hazara Singh and the appellants herein were inimical to each other on account of some land dispute. On 27.02.1998, her husband had gone for a walk and while coming back at about 8.15 PM, when he reached near the house of Darshan Singh-appellant No. 1, the appellants armed with weapons and with an intention to kill Hazara Singh attacked him. The appellant No. 1 was armed with dah, appellant No. 2 with Toka and the appellant Nos. 3 and 4 with sticks attacked her husband as result of which her husband received grievous injuries. 8. During the course of investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statements of the witnesses, recovered the weapons of offence and after obtaining medical report, presented the charge-sheet for commission of offences under sections 307/34 RPC and 4/25 Arms Act. All the appellants were charged for commission of offence under section 307/34 RPC and in addition to that, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were also charged for commission of offence under section 4/25 Arms Act. The prosecution was directed to lead evidence and the prosecution out of total 08 witnesses, examined six witnesses. After the closure of the evidence, the statements of appellants were recorded but they did not choose to lead evidence and after hearing the appellants, the learned trial court convicted the appellant vide judgment and order dated 07.08.2007 (supra). 9. It is also necessary to have a brief resume of the prosecution evidence. PW No. 1, Hazara Singh, who is the injured, stated that on 27.02.1998 at about 8.15 PM, while he was coming back after having a walk and when he reached Gurmail Singh’s Tent House, the appellants attacked him. Appellant No. 2 was armed with Toka, Darshan Singh with dah and the other appellants were armed with sticks. The appellant No. 2 inflicted an injury on the left side of his face whereas appellant No. 1 inflicted the injury on his back with the dah and the other accused beat him with sticks. PW Mastan Singh and his wife took him to the Police Station and thereafter he was sent to the Hospital at R. S. Pura and from there he was referred to Jammu Hospital where he stayed for about 15 days for his medical treatment. He proved the disclosure statements made by the appellant Nos. 1 & 2 and they were marked ExPW MS and ExPW MS/I. He further stated that said weapons were also recovered at the instance of appellant Nos. 1 and 2. He proved the disclosure statements made by the appellant Nos. 1 & 2 and they were marked ExPW MS and ExPW MS/I. He further stated that said weapons were also recovered at the instance of appellant Nos. 1 and 2. He also proved the recovery memos ExPW MS/2 and ExPW MS/3. He identified the Toka and Dah in the court. He stated that there was dispute over the land with the appellants. In cross examination, he stated that as he was unconscious, he cannot say who came on spot. His statement was recorded by the Police after 5 to 7 days of the occurrence in the Hospital. He further stated that it was moon light at the time of occurrence and there was light also. He admitted that Mastan Singh had a case pending against the appellants in R.S. Pura. 10. PW Mastan Singh stated on 27.02.1998 at about 8.15 PM when the victim reached the shop of the appellants, the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 who were armed with dah and toka respectively and the other accused, who were armed with sticks attacked his brother. Appellant No. 2 inflicted injury with the Toka on the face of the Hazara Singh whereas appellant No. 1 attacked Hazara Singh with the Dah at his back and the other accused beat his brother with sticks and fists and blows and thereafter, the appellants ran away. He, his sister-in-law Amarjeet Kour, reached on spot and took the injured to the Police Station. Thereafter the injured was taken to R. S. Pura Hospital and then, he was referred to Hospital at Jammu. He stated that due to a dispute over land, the appellants had attacked Hazara Singh. This witness also proved the disclosure statements made by appellant Nos. 1 and 2 and also the recoveries made at the instance of appellant Nos. 1 and 2. He also identified the weapons in the court. In cross examination, he deposed that his house was at a distance of one furlong and he was the first one to reach on spot. A number of villagers gathered on spot afterwards. He himself had seen that the appellants attacking his brother. 11. PW Jatinder Singh stated that on 27.02.1998, when Hazara Singh reached near the house of the appellants which is near the Tent House, the appellants attacked him. A number of villagers gathered on spot afterwards. He himself had seen that the appellants attacking his brother. 11. PW Jatinder Singh stated that on 27.02.1998, when Hazara Singh reached near the house of the appellants which is near the Tent House, the appellants attacked him. The appellant No. 2 was armed with Toka and appellant No. 1 was armed with Dah. The appellant No. 2 inflicted the injuries on the left side of the face of the victim with Toka and appellant No. 1 inflicted injuries on the back of the Hazara Singh with Dah. The other accused beat the complainant with sticks. Mastan Singh and wife of Hazara Singh also came on spot. They raised hue and cry and thereafter the appellants ran away. In cross examination, he stated that Hazara Singh was his real uncle and he was standing in the shop of Vijay Kumar situated in the market. The Police had come on the day of occurrence and on the next day, his statement was recorded by the Police. The fight took place for about 10 minutes. 12. PW-4 Amarjeet Kour stated that on 27.02.1998 at about 8.15 PM, when she was at home, she heard cries coming from behind her house. She went on spot and saw the appellants were beating Hazara Singh. The appellant No. 2 was having a Toka and appellant No. 1 was having a Dah and the other appellants were armed with sticks. Appellant No. 2 inflicted injuries on the face of Hazara Singh with Toka and appellant No. 1 inflicted injuries at the back of the Hazara Singh with Dah. Others accused beat him with sticks. Mastan Singh and Jatinder Singh reached on spot prior to her. On spot one electric bulb was also on. When the people gathered on spot, appellants ran away. She lodged the FIR and proved the contents of the FIR marked as ExPW AK. She further stated that the appellants were having enmity with the complainant over land. In cross examination, she stated that she reached on spot within 2 and 2 ½ minutes. Appellants inflicted injuries with Toka and Dah to the Hazara Singh in her presence on spot. First they had gone to Hospital and then to Police. She had given oral report and signed the same. She further stated that the market was open at the time of occurrence. 13. PW-Dr. Appellants inflicted injuries with Toka and Dah to the Hazara Singh in her presence on spot. First they had gone to Hospital and then to Police. She had given oral report and signed the same. She further stated that the market was open at the time of occurrence. 13. PW-Dr. Vijay Kumar has reported about the injuries and as per his statement, all the injuries suffered by the injured were incised wounds. 14. PW-Arun Kumar Sharma is the Investigating Officer, he has deposed about the investigation conducted by him and stated that after the conclusion of the investigation, he had filed the challan against the appellants. 15. The learned trial court after hearing the parties, acquitted the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 for commission of offences under section 4/25 Arms Act. However, convicted all the appellants for commission of offences under sections 326 and 323/34 RPC. 16. The PW Hazara Singh –injured has stated that the appellant No. 1 attacked him with Dah and caused injuries to him at his back, whereas appellant No. 2 was armed with Toka inflicted injuries on the left side of his face on 27.02.1998 at about 8.15 PM and his testimony has been corroborated by PW Mastan Singh, PW Jatinder Singh and PW Amarjeet Kour. PW Amarjeet Kour has proved the FIR marked as ExPW AK. Despite, cross examination, neither the injured nor the eye witnesses, as mentioned above, deposed anything contrary to the prosecution story, rather there is a consistent version of all the prosecution witnesses that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 caused the injuries with Dah and Toka on the face and the back of the injured Hazara Singh respectively. The injuries suffered by the injured Hazara Singh have been corroborated by the statement of Dr. Vijay Kumar. The contention of the appellants that there are material contradictions in the prosecution story is not forthcoming from the evidence brought on record by the prosecution and further the contention that only the interested witnesses have been associated during the investigation is also of no consequence in view of the testimony of the injured witness namely Hazara Singh, duly corroborated by the medical opinion. As such, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the conviction of the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 for commission of offences under sections 326 and 323 RPC. 17. So far as appellant Nos. As such, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity in the conviction of the appellants Nos. 1 and 2 for commission of offences under sections 326 and 323 RPC. 17. So far as appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are concerned, all the eye witnesses including the injured have stated that they too beat the complaint with the sticks. It needs to be noted that though the Investigating Officer had seized the sticks but during the trial, the seizure memo of the sticks have not been proved. More so, in view of the medical opinion that all the injuries were incised wounds. This is an admitted fact that there was a land dispute between both the parties. No doubt the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 have caused the injuries but the false implication of the appellant Nos. 2 and 3 cannot be ruled out, particularly in view of the fact that the seizure memos with regard to sticks have not been proved and further there is no evidence that any injury caused to the complainant was caused by the sticks. The learned trial court has not considered this vital aspect of the case while convicting the appellant Nos. 3 and 4 and this Court finds that appellant Nos. 3 and 4 were entitled to be acquitted as the prosecution had not proved its case against the appellant Nos. 3 and 4 beyond doubt. 18. As this Court has found that the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 were required to be convicted for commission of offences under section 326 and 323 RPC and has come to the conclusion that there is no illegality in the judgment passed by the learned trial court with regard to the conviction of the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 but during the pendency of the instant appeal, a compromise has been entered between the complainant and the appellant No. 2 i.e. Sujan Singh and appellant No. 4 i.e. Sukhwinder Singh. A perusal of the compromise dated 27.11.2018 entered into between the complainant, appellant Nos. 2 & 4 reveals that they have entered into a compromise with the intervention of the Biradri members and in the compromise it has been agreed that the complainant has no objection in the event the proceedings of the challan are closed pursuant to the compromise. A perusal of the compromise dated 27.11.2018 entered into between the complainant, appellant Nos. 2 & 4 reveals that they have entered into a compromise with the intervention of the Biradri members and in the compromise it has been agreed that the complainant has no objection in the event the proceedings of the challan are closed pursuant to the compromise. The appellant No. 1 is no more and the appellant No. 4 is one of the sons of appellant No. 1 and the parties have entered into a compromise and the complainant does not want to pursue the case. Now, it is to be seen whether after conviction in non-compoundable cases the proceedings can be quashed. 19. In Criminal Appeal bearing No. 1489/2012 titled “Ram Gopal and another vs State of Madhya Pradesh” decided on 29.09.2021, the Apex Court while quashing the criminal proceedings against the appellants therein even after their conviction under sections 143, 144, 147, 148, 342, 324 and 326, read with 149 IPC on the basis of compromise and where the maximum sentence awarded to them was two years simple imprisonment under section 326 IPC, after considering its various earlier pronouncements has held as under: “19. We thus sum up and hold that as opposed to section 320 Cr.P.C. where the Court is squarely guided by the compromise between the parties in respect of offences ‘compoundable’ within the statutory framework, the extraordinary power enjoined upon a High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or vested in this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution, can be invoked beyond the metes and bounds of Section 321 Cr.P.C. Nonetheless, we reiterate that such powers of wide amplitude ought to be exercised carefully in the context of quashing criminal proceedings, bearing in mind: (i) Nature and effect of the offence on the conscious of the society; (ii) Seriousness of the injury, if any; (iii) Voluntary nature of compromise between the accused and the victim; & (iv) Conduct of the accused persons, prior to and after the occurrence of the purported offence and/or other relevant considerations.” 20. In the instant case, the parties are the residents of the same village and injuries were not on vital parts of the body as observed by the learned trial court itself and once they have entered into a settlement, sentenced awarded to the appellant Nos. In the instant case, the parties are the residents of the same village and injuries were not on vital parts of the body as observed by the learned trial court itself and once they have entered into a settlement, sentenced awarded to the appellant Nos. 1(now deceased) and 2 would not serve any purpose but may again bring the parties at loggerheads, as such, this Court is of considered opinion that the proceedings are required to be quashed against the appellant No.1 and appellant No. 2. 21. In view of for all what has been discussed above, appellant Nos. 3 and 4 are acquitted and proceedings against the appellant Nos. 1 and 2 are quashed, resulting into acquittal of appellant No. 1 and 2 on the basis of compromise. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.08.2007 passed by the trial court are modified accordingly. 22. The appeal is disposed of. 23. Record of the trial court be sent back.