IMPORTANT POINT
Fact of compromise in a non-compoundable offence could be taken into account in determining quantum of sentence.

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The appellants who are described as A-1 and A-2 (hereinafter referred to as the accused ) had questioned correctness of their conviction as recorded by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Ist Class, Osmanabad for offences punishable under Sections 325 and 326 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the IPC ).

3. For offence relatable to Section 326 read with Section 34 IPC each of A-1 to A-3 was sentenced by the learned trial Judge to undergo imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. But looking to the age of A-4, he was sentenced to imprisonment for one month and pay a fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. No separate sentence was passed for the offence punishable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC.

4. By the impugned judgment, the High Court held that A-3 was not responsible for the injury on the leg of victim Ratnabai (PW-2) and on the head of the victim Manik (PW-1) and taking note of the long passage of time the custodial sentence was reduced to the period already undergone. However, the fine was enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- For Pandurang Mohan Aade (A-4) also, looking to his age fine was enhanced to Rs. 2,000/- but custodial sentence was reduced to period already undergone. So far as the present appellants are concerned it was held that there is no scope for interference with the sentence awarded. In other words, the conviction was maintained for all the four accused persons but different sentences were imposed.

5. The benefit of Bombay Probation of Offenders Act (in short the Probation Act ) was not extended to the appellants looking into the nature of the offence committed.

6. After disposal of the revision application on 11.12.2003, an application was filed stating that the matter has been compromised between the victims and the accused persons and, therefore, the order should be modified. The said application was rejected by the learned Single Judge holding that there is no scope for modification of the order after disposal of the revision application.

7. Though in support of the appeals, many points were urged on the factual aspects, we find that the Courts below have concurrently found that the accused persons were responsible for injuries on the victims Ratnabai and Manik and, therefore, in view of the evidence of the eye-witnesses, more particularly, the injured witnesses there is no scope for interference with the conclusions arrived at.

8. It was next submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that occurrence took place on 1.3.1993 and more than a decade has elapsed and in the meantime the parties have sorted out their differences, entered into compromise and, therefore, the High Court should have accepted the prayer for modification of the order.

9. It was further submitted that though the offence under Section 326 is not compoundable in terms of Section 320(9) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short the Code ) this Court can exercise jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (in short the Constitution ) and pass necessary orders, It was submitted that the benefit extended to the other co-accused persons should be made available to the appellants and the custodial sentence should have been reduced to the period already undergone.

10. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that as the dispute was amicably settled and the matter was compromised, the High Court ought to have granted permission to compound the offences and ought not to have convicted the appellants and imposed the sentence. For this purpose, reliance is placed upon the decisions of this Court in Ram Pujan v. State of U.P. (1973(2) SCC 456) and Mahesh Chand v. State Rajasthan (1990 Supp SCC 681). As against this, learned counsel for the responde