Criminal Appeal (SJ) No. 391 of 1998 ****** Against the judgment of conviction dated 21.09.1998 and order of sentence dated 26.09.1998 respectively passed by Sri Krishnanand Pandey, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge 3rd, Motihari in Sessions Trial No. 289 of 1993. ****** 1. Hari Prasad, Son of Sahdeo Sah. 2. Santosh Kumar, Son of Hari Prasad. 3. Ramesh Prasad, Son of Mahatam Prasad. All (1 to 3) residents of Bank Road, Police Station – Raxaul, District – East Champaran. 4. Ajai Kumar, Son of Kapildeo Dubey. 5. Sanjay Kumar, Son of Sheo Bachan Das. 6. Rajendra Giri, Son of Late Bhikhari Giri. All (4 to 6) residents of village – Tumaria Tola, Police Station – Raxaul, District – East Champaran. .... .... Appellants. Versus The State Of Bihar .... .... Respondent. ****** For the Appellants : Mr. Rajendra Narain, Advocate. Mrs. Anju Narain, Advocate Mr. Sanjay Srivastava, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Renu Kumari, A.P.P. ****** P R E S E N T THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD GOPAL PRASAD, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State. 2. The appellants have been convicted under Sections 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year as well as six months respectively and both 2 the sentences shall run concurrently. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, contended that there is compromise petition pending in the case which was filed in lower court and there is a case and counter case and both the parties are descendents of common ancestor. The case filed by these appellants bearing Raxaul P.S. Case No. 76 of 1991 was compromised on the compromise petition. However, the compromise petition filed by the appellants was not allowed in this case on the ground that charge-sheet was filed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and charge was framed under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code which was non- compoundable at the time when compromise petition was filed. The learned lower court, however, maintained a conviction under Sections 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants but did not consider the compromise petition, whereas the offences under Sections 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable with the permission of the court. Hence, it is contended that the day he holds the conviction under Sections 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code instead of maintaining conviction and sentence ought to have been compounded the offence. 4. In view of the submission, I do not find it fit to go into the facts of the case, however, having regard to the finding, it is apparent that the conviction has been recorded under Sections 325 and 324 of the 3 Indian Penal Code and both the sections are compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. with permission of court. Hence, having regard to the fact that the offence is compoundable and both the parties are agnates and hence there is no reason why the offence under Sections 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code is not compounded and hence the order of conviction and sentence by the learned lower court is hereby set aside and the offence under Sections 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code is ordered to be compounded in view of the compromise petition dated 21.09.1994 which is marked as Ext. A/3. Hence, the order of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside in view of the fact that the offence under Sections 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code is compounded and the appeal is allowed. (Gopal Prasad, J.) Patna High Court, Patna. Dated, the 24th July, 2011. N.A.F.R./Kundan.