1 Criminal Appeal No.1333/2011 28.11.2011 Shri Viveksingh, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Vikas Yadav, Advocate for the complainants. Shri Anil Ojha, Dy Govt. Advocate for the respondent/State. By this appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mahdleshwar in Special Sessions Trial No.30/06 has been challenged. The conviction is for offence under Sections 458/34 and 323/34 of IPC on two counts. The accused appellants are sentenced under Section 458/34 IPC to undergo 5 years RI each with fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default to undergo RI for 250 days and under Section 323/34 of IPC for 3 months RI each. Counsel for the appellants has candidly stated that there is compromise worked out between the parties i.e., accused/ appellants and complainants Ashwin Joshi and Sushila Joshi and no more lis remains. Counsel for the appellants has relied on Ishwarsingh v/s State of M.P. , reported in AIR 2009 SC 675, whereby the Apex Court has laid down that where non- compoundable offences are involved and parties reached at a compromise and although the offence cannot be compounded; however, compromise can be considered while awarding sentence. In the said case the offence was under Section 307 IPC. Counsel prays that the same benefit be extended to the present appellants. He stated that the offence under Section 323 IPC is compoundable; however, under Section 458 IPC is not compoundable. He further states that the appellants are satisfied if the sentence is modified suitably in accordance with the aforementioned case. Counsel for the complainants has also stated that he is fully satisfied with the contention put forth by the counsel for the appellants. The complainants before me have also stated that they have entered into the compromise on their own will and no 2 more grievance remains. In this light, Counsel for the State has not opposed the submissions as put forth by the counsel for the appellants. Considering these facts I find that the applications (I.A. Nos.7349/11 and 7348/11 need to be allowed in the interest of justice. Without discussing on the merits of the case it is directed that although I uphold the conviction of the appellants under Sections 458/34 & 323/34 of IPC as held by the trial Court, the custodial sentence as imposed by the trial Court is hereby set aside and reduced to the period already undergone by the accused/ applicants. The appeal is, therefore, partly allowed only to the extent herein above indicated. Compromise be taken on record. The sentences are suitably amended as per Ishwarsingh (supra). Certified copy as per rules. (Mrs. S.R. Waghmare, J.) rcs*