IMPORTANT POINT
In non-compoundable offences compromise is non-consequential except that it can be a basis for reduction of sentence.

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal arises out of an order dated 11.10.2011 passed by a Single Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur, whereby Criminal Revision No. 741 of 2008 filed by the Appellants has been partly allowed their conviction for offences punishable under Sections 323, 459 - and 459/34 Indian Penal Code set aside but their conviction for offences punishable under Sections 324 and 326 both read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and the sentence of five years rigorous imprisonment awarded to the Appellants affirmed,

3. When the matter came up before us on 21.8.2012, Mr. Bhagwati Prasad, senior advocate, appearing for the Appellants drew our attention to an application filed by the Appellants seeking permission to place on record additional documents according to which the victim of the offences allegedly committed by the Appellants had entered into a compromise/settlement with the Appellants whereby all the disputes between them stood settled amicably including the case at hand. This Court further noticed that the victim Smt. Sangeeta was not a party to these proceedings nor had anyone appeared on her behalf to support the averments made in the alleged compromise deed. In the -circumstances, it became necessary to direct that the genuineness of the compromise/settlement referred to in the application filed by the Appellants be verified by the trial court and a report submitted to this Court. This Court further directed that the trial court shall ensure that the victim is properly identified and her statement regarding the settlement recorded.

4. Pursuant to the above direction the trial Court summoned the victim Smt. Sangeeta, recorded her statement and submitted its report dated 10.09.2012 to this Court. A reading of the above report shows that the compromise referred to in the application by the Appellants is genuine and that the same has been signed by the victim Smt. Sangeeta without any fear or inducement. The report further suggests that the victim does not want to pursue the proceedings any further. The trial court has forwarded the statement of the victim recorded by it for the perusal of this Court. Learned Counsel appearing for the victim Smt. Sangeeta supports the report submitted by the Trial Court.

5. Mr. Bhagwati Prasad argued that the parties, namely, the Appellants and the victim belong to the same village and are neighbours and that the settlement arrived at between them gives a quietus to all disputes that had led to the incident in question. He urged that out of a sentence of five years awarded to the Appellants, Appellant Mukesh has already undergone four years and three months, while the remaining Appellants, namely, Vijendra Kumar, Pawan Kumar and Jhabarmal have undergone 91/2 months sentence each. He submitted that in the light of the settlement arrived at between the parties and the fact that one of the Appellants has already undergone a substantial part of the sentence awarded to him, this Court could allow the prayer for composition of the offences or in the alternative reduce the sentence to the period already undergone by them. He further argued that the High Court having disbelieved the version of the prosecution that the injury caused to the victim Smt. Sangeeta resulting in the loss of her vision was caused by a sharp edged weapon and having found that the said injury could have been caused by a stone Hung at her, the conviction of the Appellants under Section 326 read with Section 34 was not sustainable. He referred in particular to the following passage from the impugned judgment in this regard:

So far as injury found in the eye of Smt. Sangeeta is concerned it is grievous in nature as it caused permanent loss of vision in her right eye. According to the Eye-Specialist, the injury could result by a sharp edged or blunt weapon. Thus, there is every possibility that the injury found in the eye of Smt. Sangeeta was caused by a stone thrown by one of the App