Mehtab S. Gill, J. - This appeal has come up for final hearing.

2. At the very out-set, learned counsel for the appellants has stated that the parties have compromised the matter. He has further stated that Swaran Singh, complainant, is present in person along with appellants.

3. Swaran Singh, complainant, has made a statement in the Court that he has compromised the matter with the appellants.

4. Learned counsel for the State has stated that some of the offences are non-compoundable and if the appellants have compromised the matter, at the most, sentence can be modified to the extent of already undergone.

5. As per the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Ram Lal and another v. State of J & K, 1999 Supreme Court Cases (Criminal) 123, the Honble Supreme Court has held that non-compoundable offences falling outside the two tables under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences cannot be compounded even with the permission of the Court. But considering the fact that the parties have come to a settlement and the appellant-accused have undergone more than six months, sentence reduced to the period already undergone.

6. In the case in hand