IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that a compromise between parties can influence sentencing, even in cases involving serious offences, provided it is considered alongside other mitigating factors.

ORDER :

Farjand Ali, J.

1. The instant criminal appeal under proviso Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved of the judgment dated 27.11.2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, No.3, Bikaner in Sessions Case No.56/2012, whereby the appellant Hetram has been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 326, 325/149, 323/149 and 341 of the IPC, appellant Baluram has been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 326/149, 325, 323/149 and 341 of the IPC and appellants Mota Ram, Gopal Ram, Ramchandra, Khamma Ram, Ramswaroop and Sita Ram have been convicted for the offences under Sections 148, 326/149, 325/149, 323/149 and 341 of the IPC and sentenced in the following manner :-

2. Facts in brief, relevant for disposal of the appeal are that on 11.07.2010 at 06.00 p.m. complainant Lekhram, who was admitted in Emergency Ward of PBM Hospital, Bikaner, gave a Parcha Bayan to the effect that 3-4 days prior to the recording of his statement, he was working in his field. In the evening at about 6 o'clock Khamma Ram, Ramchandra, Hetram came to his field and assaulted him. A case in this regard was got registered at the Police Station Panchu. In the morning of the day of recording the statement, when the complainant's sons Ramswaroop and Babulal did not return from another filed, he went to look for them. He reached to Jait Talai, where Ramchandra, Hetram, Ramswaroop, Seeta Ram, Mohan Ram, Balu Ram, Khamma Ram, Mota Ram and Gopal Ram were hiding with arms. They launched an attack on him. Hetram gave an axe blow on his right leg and Balu Ram gave him lathi blow on the hand. Hearing the commotion, Babulal and Ramswarop reached at the spot, upon which the accused left him and started assaulting his sons with lathis, Sariyas and Axe. When the family members reached there hearing the noise, the accused ran away from the spot. On the basis of the aforesaid report, FIR No.57/2010 was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 149, 308, 323 and 341 of the IPC and after usual investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants before the competent court. After a full-fledged trial, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced vide the impugned judgment, which is assailed in this appeal.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, the petitioners have filed an application under Section 320(5) of Cr.P.C seeking compounding of offences in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties. Learned counsel for the parties submitted that that accused/appellants and the complainants have entered into a compromise with mutual consent. There is no dispute remaining between them. It is further submitted that the parties belong to the same village and are living peacefully since long. No fruitful purpose would be served by sending the appellants to jail. Thus, it was prayed that the appellants may be acquitted from the charges on the basis of the compromise.

4. However, looking to facts and circumstances of the case, this court showed non-inclination for acquittal of the appellants based upon the compromise, upon which learned counsel for the appellants submits that he will not assail conviction of the appellants and confines his arguments to the alternative prayer of reduction of the sentences awarded by the trial court on the basis of the compromise. He submits that the incident in the present case pertains to the year 2010. The appellants