..(1).. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.162 OF 1998 Mahadeo Maruti Patil. ..Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra. ..Respondent. .... Mr.A.S.Karwande, Adv. for the applicant. Mr.Nitin Ghawre for orig.complainant. Ms.A.A.Mane, APP, for the State. .... CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM : SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATED : 10th December, 2008. DATED : 10th December, 2008. DATED : 10th December, 2008. P.C.: 1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant orig.accused No.1 and the learned APP for the State. 2. By judgment and order dated 31st December, 1994 the applicant came to be convicted by the learned Vth Assistant Sessions Judge at Kolhapur in Sessions Case No.99 of 1994. By the said judgment and order the applicant was convicted under Section 307 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for five years and to pay fine of Rs.2000/- in default two months R.I.. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.21 of 1996 before the learned Sessions Judge at Gadhinglaj. By ..(2).. judgment and order dated 14th May, 1998, the learned Sessions Judge dismissed the said appeal. Hence, this Revision. 3. The complainant - Vishnu Sakharam Pawale came to be injured in the incident. He has filed an affidavit before the Court on 28.1.1998, wherein it is stated that during pendency of the matter the case was compromised between the complainant and the applicant. The son of the complainant Sachin Vishnu Pavale also filed affidavit, which is taken on record and marked "X" for identification. 4. However, it is seen that the applicant/accused has been mainly convicted under Section 307 of IPC which is a non-compoundable offence, hence, I cannot acquit the applicant/accused person on the basis of the said compromise. However, useful reference may be made to the case reported in 1995 Supp (4) SCC 1995 Supp (4) SCC 1995 Supp (4) SCC Page-631 Salim and others V/s. State of M.P. Page-631 Salim and others V/s. State of M.P. Page-631 Salim and others V/s. State of M.P. wherein similar facts arose. In the said case, the applicants were convicted under Section 307 read with 34 of IPC. The Apex Court had observed thus :- "We cannot acquit the accused persons on the ..(3).. basis of the compromise. However, as held by this Court in Ram Pujan and others V/s State of U.P. the fact that they have compromised the matter and have patched up their differences and the fact that since then they have been living together happily, has relevance so far as the question of sentence is concerned". . The Hon’ble Apex Court after having been satisfied of genuineness of the compromise allowed the appeal and directed that the sentence should be altered to that already undergone. 5. In the present case also, the applicant has been convicted mainly under Section 307 of IPC. The facts in the present case and those in the case of Salim (supra) Salim (supra) Salim (supra) are similar. I am also inclined to pass similar orders with the view that henceforth no untoward incident takes place and that the applicant and injured witnesses will live in peace and harmony in the village. 6. In this view of the matter, the judgment and order of conviction passed by the learned Vth Assistant Sessions Judge, Kolhapur dated 31.12.1994 ..(4).. in Sessions Case No.99 of 1994 as well as the judgment and order confirming the conviction passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gadhinglaj dated 14.5.1998 in Criminal Appeal No.21 of 1996 are confirmed. However, in view of the amicable settlement between the parties, the period of imprisonment is reduced to the period undergone by the applicant. The applicant is on bail. His bail bonds shall stand cancelled. 7. Rule is made partly absolute accordingly. (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J.)