Order : 1. Learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that a compromise has been reached between the parties regarding the conviction under Section 307/34, 326, and Section 3/25 of the Arms Act. They further submit that the parties in close relation. The details of the compromise, which has been brought on record, reflect the relationship between the parties, and are reproduced as follows:- 01- ;g gS fd ifjoknh i{k ,oa vfHk;qDrx.k dSyk'k mQZ dkyqjke mQZ dkyw ,oa fyPNkjke mQZ y{e.k ,d gh ifjokj ds lxs ppsjs HkkbZ gS] gekjs ,oa vfHk;qDrx.k ds ifjokj ds chp xkao esa eqf[k;ku ds le{k yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek gks x;k gS] rFkk nksuks ifjokjksa ds chp py jgs fookn dks [kRe dj fy;k] rFkk 'kkafr ls jg jgs gSA eq> vkgr 'kSrkujke dks yxh xksyh fdlds ?kj ls pyh] o fdl rjQ ls vk;h] eq>s irk ugha pyk FkkA vc pfwad gekjs nksuks ifjokjksa ds chp xkao esa vkilh yksd vnkyr dh Hkkouk ls jkthukek gks x;k gS] ge bl eqdnes dks vkxs ugha pykuk pkgrs gSA 2. The counsel for the parties further submit that without going into the merits of the case, the Court may consider reducing the sentence in accordance with the prevailing law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Manjeet Singh v. The State of Punjab & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 1090 of 2019 arising out of SLP No. 82 of 2018. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced as follows: (6) Section 307 I.P.C. is a non-compoundable offence. No permission can be granted to record the compromise between the parties. In Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2008) 15 SCC 667 , the Supreme Court of India has held that in a non-compoundable offence the compromise entered into between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind for considering the quantum of sentence. In Paras (13) and (14) of the judgment in Ishwar Singh (supra) this Court has held as under: "13. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255 , Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 671, this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant- accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. In Jetha Ram v. State of Rajasthan, (2006) 9 SCC 255 , Murugesan v. Ganapathy Velar, (2001) 10 SCC 504 and Ishwarlal v. State of M.P., (2008) 15 SCC 671, this Court, while taking into account the fact of compromise between the parties, reduced sentence imposed on the appellant- accused to already undergone, though the offences were not compoundable. But it was also stated that in Mahesh Chand v. State of Rajasthan, 1990 Supp. SCC 681 such offence was ordered to be compounded. 14. In our considered opinion, it would not be appropriate to order compounding of an offence not compoundable under the Code ignoring and keeping aside statutory provisions. In our judgment, however, limited submission of the learned counsel for the appellant deserves consideration that while imposing substantive sentence, the factum of compromise between the parties is indeed a relevant circumstance which the Court may keep in mind." (7) As noted earlier, in the present case the appellant- accused, Manjit Singh, has been sentenced to undergo imprisonment for five years. The appellant is said to have served seventeen months of imprisonment. Taking note of the compromise entered into between the parties and considering the relationship of the parties and the facts and circumstances of the case and also the sentence undergone by the appellant-accused, the sentence of imprisonment imposed upon the appellant under Sections 307 and 324 I.P.C. is reduced from five years/two years to the period already undergone by him. The appellant is ordered to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the fine amount of Rs.50,000/- imposed upon the appellant is set aside. If the said fine amount has already been paid, the same shall be refunded to the appellant-Manjit Singh. 3. The counsel pointed out that the appellant has undergone actual custody for a period of four years as of 2020, resulting in a total custody duration of approximately four and a half years. The custody report is on record and indicates that, as of 21.10.2024, the appellant had completed four years, one month, and two days of custody. 4. The Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the matter on its merits but is, at the same time, unable to refute the applicability of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manjeet Singh (supra). 4. The Learned Public Prosecutor opposes the matter on its merits but is, at the same time, unable to refute the applicability of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Manjeet Singh (supra). Therefore, this Court, relying on the judgments in Manjeet Singh and Ishwar Singh, finds that in the peculiar factual matrix where both parties are closely related and have entered into a considered compromise, this is a fit case where the sentence can be revisited by the Court. 5. Thus, taking note of the compromise entered into between both parties, considering the custody report, the facts and circumstances of the case, and the sentence already undergone by the appellant, the sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone, which is approximately four years and six months. The appellant is ordered to be released, unless required in connection with any other case. In view of the compromise entered into between the parties, the fine amount is also set aside. 6. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. 7. Upon the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the application for the suspension of sentence as well as the application for taking the compromise on record are also disposed of.