In cases of non-compoundable offenses, while the conviction cannot be set aside due to compromise, the sentencing may be adjusted based on reconciliation between parties and circumstances such as pre-existing familial relations.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties including the learned counsel for the informant, namely, Nimai Pandit S/o Pandu Pandit, who is also the sole victim in the present case.

2. This appeal has been filed for setting aside the judgment of conviction dated 02.08.2005 and sentence dated 03.08.2005 passed in Sessions Case No.206/1999 corresponding to Sessions Case No.12/2001 by the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Jamtara, whereby the appellant nos. 1 to 4 has been held guilty of offence under Sections 147 and 323 of IPC ; appellant no. 5 has been held guilt of offence under Sections 148 and 307 of and appellant no. 6 has been held guilty of offence under , 307 and 379 of .

3. The learned trial court has been pleased to sentence the appellant, namely, Anil Pandit (appellant no. 5 herein) and Akur Pandit (appellant no. 6 herein) for a period of 3 years for offence under Section 148 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 7 years for offence under Section 307 of and Akur Pandit has been further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 years for offence under Section 379 of . The appellants, namely, Nimai Pandit, Parmanand Pandit, Arun Pandit and Manbharan Pandit (appellant nos. 1 to 4 herein respectively) have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year for offence under Section 147 of and rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 year under Section 323 of . All the appellants were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- each and in case of default in payment of fine, they were further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one month and all the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

4. Learned counsels for the parties have submitted that a joint compromise petition has been filed through I.A. No.13721/2024 and the victim-cum-informant has also joined in the joint compromise petition.

5. The learned counsel for the informant has submitted that both the parties have settled their dispute out of court with their free heart and consent and they belong to the same family and as of now they have good and amicable relationship. It has also been submitted that the informant party claimed to be the owner of the property in connection with which dispute arose and a decree was passed in favor of the accused persons in the civil suit.

6. It has been submitted that except offence under Section 307 of IPC , the rest of the offences are compoundable in nature and so far as Section 379 of is concerned, the same is compoundable with the permission of the court. It has been submitted that appellant nos. 5 and 6 were convicted for offence under and out of them, appellant no. 5, namely, Anil Pandit has expired and the appeal has abated. So far as Akur Pandit is concerned, he is appellant no. 6 in the present case.

All other accused persons have been convicted for offence under Section 147 and 323 of IPC and Akur Pandit has been convicted for offence under Sections 148 , 307 and 379 of . So far as theft is concerned, there is an allegation that one wrist watch and golden ring of the informant was stolen.

7. The learned counsels have also submitted that the doctor has been examined as P.W.-9 and he has stated that there were two sharp cut wounds on the head scalp 2” x 1” x skin deep and another 1½” x ½” x bone deep with red blood clot, but the nature of inj