ORDER : V Srinivas, J. Assailing the judgment dated 26.07.2012 in Crl.A.No.64 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Judge, Family Court-cum- Additional Sessions Judge at Srikakulam, confirming the conviction and sentence imposed against petitioner/accused by the judgment dated 12.05.2011 in S.C.No.216 of 2008 on the file of the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Sompeta, for the offence under section 307, 326 and 341 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”), the petitioner/accused filed the present criminal revision case under Section 397 r/w.401 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973. 2. The revision case was admitted on 30.10.2012 and the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused was suspended, vide orders in Crl.R.C.M.P.No.2107 of 2011. 3. Pending criminal revision case, I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024 were filed by the petitioner and victim/de facto complainant/P.W.1. 4. I.A.No.1 of 2024 is filed to implead the de facto complainant/P.W.1 as respondent No.2 in the main revision to compromise the matter. 5. I.A.Nos.2 and 3 of 2024 are filed by the de facto complainant as well petitioner along with joint memo prays the Court to permit them to compound the offences by stating that on the advice of elders, relatives, parents and husband of de facto complainant, she intends to pardon the petitioner as the incident happened due to immaturity of thought and emotional distress of petitioner for her refusal to marry him, thereby, they are willing to compromise the matter and de facto complainant/P.W.1 has no objection to consider the present revision. 6. Sri Raja Reddy Koneti, learned counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the incident took place nearly about seventeen years back; that de facto complainant has married, residing with her husband as well the petitioner also settled in his life and working as a lecturer; that on the advice of elders and her husband, de facto complainant is ready to pardon the petitioner to see that the petitioner do not suffer further loss in his career, which would also affect his family and children, since the petitioner already undergone eight months imprisonment, thereby, he prays to permit them to compound the offence. 7. 7. Per contra, Sri S.Dheera Kanishk, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor opposed the said applications and vehemently opposed and submits that in the present case on hand, it is a horrific acid attack that was taken place on the victim woman, which cannot be compromised nor compounded by showing undue sympathy, as it gives wrong message to the society as well would hamper the criminal justice system; that though at that relevant point of time as there is no separate provision for punishment on acid attack cases, and it is not encapsulated under IPC, Section 307 of IPC was invoked; that by considering the gravity and nature of the offence, this Court cannot be permitted them to compound the offence, thereby, he prays to disallow the said applications. 8. In support of the above contentions, learned Special Assistant Public Prosecutor relied upon plethora of pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh v. State of M.P., (1987) 3 SCC 80 , State of Karnataka v. Joseph Rodrigues, 2006 SCC Online Kar 494, State of M.R. v. Bala @ Balram, (2005) 8 SCC 1 , Ravji v. State of Rajasthan, (1996) 2 SCC 175 , Lakshi v. Union of India, (2016) 3 SCC 669 and State of Himachal Pradesh v. Vijay Kumar @ Pappu, (2019) 5 SCC 373 ., 9. In view of the above rival contentions, this Court intends to appreciate the factual background of the prosecution case that when the victim pursuing her B.Sc. final year, the accused was pestering the victim to marry him as he loves her for the past five years, but she refused his proposal. On 02.11.2007 at about 10.45 a.m., accused waylaid her near Sri Geetham School, Gandhi Nagar, demanded her to marry him, when she refused the same, he threatened to kill her and poured acid on her, resulted, her right shoulder and face were burnt, skin peeled off within no time. 10. On 02.11.2007 at about 10.45 a.m., accused waylaid her near Sri Geetham School, Gandhi Nagar, demanded her to marry him, when she refused the same, he threatened to kill her and poured acid on her, resulted, her right shoulder and face were burnt, skin peeled off within no time. 10. After full-fledged trial, vide judgment dated 12.05.2011 in S.C.No.216 of 2008 on the file of Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Sompeta, trial Court found the accused guilty of the offences under Section 307, 326 and 341 of IPC and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of six (6) months, sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five (5) years and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default to suffer simple imprisonment of six (6) months and also sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one month, for the respective offences and all the sentences shall run concurrently. In addition to that, Rs.25,000/- is awarded to the victim girl towards compensation payable by the accused. 11. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner/accused preferred an appeal, vide Crl.A.No.64 of 2011, before the Court of learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Srikakulam and the same was dismissed, vide judgment dated 26.07.2012, by confirming the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court. However, consider the said appeal to the extent of setting aside the order of compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded to the victim payable by the accused. 12. Against the said judgment of the first Appellate Court, the present criminal revision case was preferred by the petitioner/accused. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner did not urge any grounds to interfere with the merits of the case. He only confined his arguments towards compound the offence between the petitioner and de facto complainant/victim. 14. It is settled law that the Court must ensure that the compromise is not contrary to the public policy or in the interest of justice. Having regard to the gravity and nature of the offence said to be committed by the accused, it is not a fit case to allow them to compound the offence as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, since the crime against the society cannot be compounded, which would undermine public interest. Having regard to the gravity and nature of the offence said to be committed by the accused, it is not a fit case to allow them to compound the offence as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, since the crime against the society cannot be compounded, which would undermine public interest. Offcourse, it is true, victim herself given consent to consider the revision by compounding the offence, but that itself is not sufficient in a heinous offence like acid attack. As contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, when this Court is permitted the parties to compound the offences like acid attack, it gives any amount of wrong signal to the society. More so, the Hon’ble Supreme Court consistently observed that acid attacks are a violation of the victim’s right to life, bodily integrity and compounding such an offence would be against public policy. The Court prioritizes justice and the safety of society in such cases, ensuring that the accused is held accountable for his heinous crimes. Thereby, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to compound the offence. As such, the applications under I.A.Nos.1, 2 and 3 of 2024 are hereby dismissed. 15. Even on merits of the case, on perusal of entire material on record nothing was elicited to disbelieve the testimony of prosecution witnesses and the prosecution is able to establish the offences against the accused by examining P.Ws.1 to 12 and Exs.P.1 to 22, M.Os.1 to 5 beyond all doubt. 16. It is settled law that in view of the concurrent findings on facts by the Trial Court as well Sessions Court, this Court being Revisional Court is not expected to set aside the same without any material of perversity or manifest error in the findings arrived by both the Courts below. There is no material before this Court to discard the trustworthiness of prosecution witnesses. 17. Coming to the quantum of sentence is concerned, this Court is much conscious of the fact that, the de facto complainant/victim, who appeared before this Court in person, submitted that she intends to pardon the petitioner to see that he do not suffer further loss in his career, which would also affect his family and children. 17. Coming to the quantum of sentence is concerned, this Court is much conscious of the fact that, the de facto complainant/victim, who appeared before this Court in person, submitted that she intends to pardon the petitioner to see that he do not suffer further loss in his career, which would also affect his family and children. Furthermore, as submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he already undergone eight months imprisonment and the offence said to the taken place on 02.11.2007 and thereby, prays to reduce the sentence impose against the petitioner. 18. Now, it is relevant to refer a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in Nand Ballabh Pant v. State (Union Territory of Delhi) AIR 1977 SC 892 , wherein the APEX Court considered the facts and reduced the period of sentence of imprisonment imposed on the appellate from two (2) months to one (1) month rigorous imprisonment. 19. Even in Nagaraj v. Union of India, 2019 (1) ALT (Crl.) 209, the APEX Court at paragraph Nos.18 and 19 held that “the appellant/accused has already undergone one month jail sentence; second, the offence in question neither against the society nor it involves any moral turpitude and nor it has resulted in causing any harm or injury to any human being except causing some damage to the railway property, viz., one railway crossing gate; and lastly, the offence is now 13 years old. In view of the aforementioned three reasons and in the interest of justice, therefore of the considered opinion that the six months jail sentence awarded to the appellate by the three Courts below deserves to be altered to what he has already undergone by the appellant till date.” 20. As well in Mohinder Singh v. State of Haryana, 2019 (3) Crimes 89, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held at paragraph No.2 that “they are not inclined to interfere on the merits of the case and at the same time, they cannot lose sight of fact that the occurrence took place more than a quarter of century back and to send the accused in prison after 25 years, would be travesty of justice.” 21. No doubt, in the present case also the offence said to be taken place on 02.11.2007 and by this time more than sixteen (16) years have already been lapsed the petitioner as well already undergone eight (8) months imprisonment, but as discussed supra, it is categorically proved that the petitioner made an acid attack on the victim and caused injuries to her. 22. At this juncture, it is appropriate to refer certain observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Laxmi case (referred to supra), which was relied in Vijay Kumar @ Pappu case (referred to supra), wherein it was categorically held that “…….Section 357-A came to be inserted in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by Act 5 of 2009 w.e.f. 31-12-2009 which, inter alia, provides for preparation of a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victims or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation. This Court further directed that acid attack victim shall be paid compensation for at least Rs.3 lakhs……..” (emphasis supplied) 23. In State of M.P. v. Mehtaab, (2015) 5 SCC 197 , the Hon’ble Supreme also observed that “…….if the said compensation was not adequate and accordingly, in addition to the said compensation to be paid by the accused…….” (emphasis supplied) 24. Having regard to the above discussion and in view of the above pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion that the conviction is upheld, however, to meet the ends of justice, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to that of already undergone by the petitioner for the offences under Section 307, 326 and 341 of IPC, in-addition, directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakh only) to the de facto complainant/victim/P.W.1. 25. In the result, I.A.Nso.1, 2 and 3 of 2024 are dismissed. The Criminal Revision Case No.1352 of 2012 is allowed in part modifying the sentence of imprisonment imposed against the petitioner/accused to that of already undergone by him for the offences under Section 307, 326 and 341 of IPC. The rest of the judgment dated 26.07.2012 in Crl.A.No.64 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Srikakulam, shall stands confirmed. The rest of the judgment dated 26.07.2012 in Crl.A.No.64 of 2011 on the file of the Court of learned Family Court-cum-Additional Sessions Judge at Srikakulam, shall stands confirmed. The petitioner/accused is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- (Rupees Eleven lakh only) to the de facto complainant/P.W.1/victim within a period of one month from the date of copy of this order made ready, under Section 357 Cr.P.C., before the Court of learned Assistant Sessions Judge at Sompeta, in default, he shall suffer rigorous imprisonment of two (2) years. On such deposit, the de facto complainant/victim is permitted to receive the same without furnishing any security and the trail Court concerned shall disburse the same on proper identification of the victim. It is needless to say that, in view of the extraordinary circumstances of the case, the conclusion arrived at penultimate paragraph of this order shall not be taken as precedent. Interim orders granted earlier if any, stand vacated. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.