Gopal Prasad, J.- Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the State.

2. The appellant No. 2 Chandan Kumar Sah has been convicted for offence under Section 324, I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and rest appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 323, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.

3: Learned counsel for the appellants however contends that both parties have entered into compromise and compromise petition has already been filed in the lower Court itself. even though, conviction recorded under Section 323 and. 324, I.P.C., but compromise petition was not effected and order of conviction and sentence was recorded without taking into consideration the compromise petition between the parties having been filed.

Though, learned trial Court mentioned in para 19 of judgment to brush aside the compromise petition on the ground that offence under Section 307, I.P.C. is not compoundable.

4. However, learned counsel for the respondents also appeared in this case has not disputed the fact that compromise petition has been filed in the lower Court.

5. From perusal of the record. it appears