Cri. Appeal 110/2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 110/2007 1 Rama s/o Digambar Puri, Age : 47 years, Occu. Agriculture, 2 Govind s/o Digambar Puri, @ Govind s/o Rama Puri, Age : 20 years, Occu. Agriculture, Both R/o Nila, Tq. Purna Dist. Parbhani. ...Appellants. Versus 1 The State of Maharashtra, through G.P. High Court Bench at Aurangabad. 2 Balasaheb s/o Digambar Puri, Age : 42 years, Occu. Agriculture, R/o Nila, Tq. Purna Dist. Parbhani. ...Respondents. Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, Advocate for appellants. Mr. T.S. Lodhe, A.P.P. for respondent No.1/State. Mr. A.S. Deshmukh, Advocate for respondent No.2. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 16th December, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1 This appeal is filed against the judgment and order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Parbhani in Sessions Case No. 113/2005 dated 05/12/2006 thereby convicting both the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentencing both of them to suffer rigorous imprisonment for seven years with fine of Rs.2,000/- with a default Cri. Appeal 110/2007 2 clause. An amount of Rs.3,000/- from the fine amount was directed to be paid to the complainant. 2 Today, the appellants as well as the complainant are present before Court and they are identified by their advocates. Having gone through the prosecution evidence, I am convinced that there is practically no reason for setting aside finding that the appellants had committed offence under section 307 read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The complainant himself graphically narrated the incident as to how it occurred. He specifically stated the roles which the appellants played at the time of incident. He asserted that it is the appellant No.1 who caught hold of him and it was the appellant No.2 who inflicted sword blows at him but only one blow caused stab injury at his abdomen. The Medical Officer prosecution witness No. 7 Bhalerao confirmed this fact by stating that he had found a stab injury at the abdomen of the complainant. Having come to this conclusion, the learned advocate appearing for the appellants, urged the Court not to ask the appellants to undergo substantive sentences. She pointed out that the complainant has now condoned the appellants. The complainant is present before the Court and has confirmed this fact. The terms of compromise are also brought on record. In view of this, although this is an offence which can not be compounded, I will have to take cognizance of the compromise that had taken place between the parties and it would not be proper now to ask the appellants to undergo the substantive sentences. The Supreme Court in similar situation in the case of Hasi Mohan Barman and another Vs. State of Assam and another reported in 2007 AIR SCW Cri. Appeal 110/2007 3 7123, has permitted such course of action. ORDER a) The appeal is partly allowed. b) The substantive sentence of the appellants is reduced to the period which they have already undergone. c) The sentence regarding the fine amount is not disturbed. d) The fine is already deposited in the Court. e) Out of the fine amount, the amount of Rs. 3,000/- would be handed over to the complainant. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.) ts k/criapl110.07/ok