- 1 - Criminal Appeal No.135/1999 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.135 OF 1999 1. Maroti s/o Namdeo Shinde, Age 23 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Dosni, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded. 2. Raghunath s/o Namdeo Shinde, Age 38 years, Occ. Agri., R/o Dosni, Taluka Degloor, District Nanded. ... APPELLANTS VERSUS The State of Maharashtra, (Copy to be served on the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad) . ... RESPONDENT ..... Shri A.H. Kapadia with Shri H.F. Pawar, Advocates for appellants Shri K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for respondent Shri R.G. Chavan, Advocate for complainant ..... CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 18th April, 2011. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kapadia, Mr. Pawar and Mr. Chavan for parties. Mr. Chavan represents complainant Pandharinath Laxman Patil. On earlier date, it was brother of the complainant, who was - 2 - Criminal Appeal No.135/1999 present and verified the urge of compounding. It is informed, the verification dated 24.1.2011 is by the complainant Pandharinath. The appellants and original complainant are present in Court. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Biloli in Sessions Case No.29/1994, by judgment dated 6.3.1999, held the appellants guilty for an offence punishable under Sections 323 and 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, directing to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default, to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for six months. No separate punishment awarded for offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Sessions Judge has also recorded, the accused/ appellants were in custody. The accused/ appellant Maroti was in custody from 26.12.1993 to 29.1.1994 while accused/ appellant Raghunath was in custody from 31.12.1993 to 29.1.1994. Fine amount, as per endorsement, is deposited on 6.3.1999, the date of judgment. 3. The appellants and original complainant, as stated above, present in the Court. The controversy between the parties is informed, resolved. They desire to leave happy life and patch their wreath. The complainant records that if the Court accepts the compounding, he has no objection. 4. Considering the nature of evidence adduced, and the subsequent development referred above, instead of setting aside the conviction, same is maintained, however, sentence which was - 3 - Criminal Appeal No.135/1999 inflicted against the appellants, is reduced to the period already undergone. The fine amount being deposited, no separate order. Criminal Appeal No.135/1999 is partly allowed. K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE