The court allowed the compounding of the offence under Section 326 IPC at the appellate stage, emphasizing the importance of maintaining peace between the parties.

Karam Chand Puri, J.

1. Baghel Singh - appellant before this Court was put to trial for offence under Section 307, 326, 324 IPC vide FIR No. 12 dated 10.2.2002, by the SHO of Police Station Garshankar. Learned trial Court after trial, acquitted the accused in respect of offence under Section 307 IPC. However, he was convicted for offence under Section 326 IPC and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, vide judgment and order dated 28.8.2003 passed by Sh. Surjit Singh, Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Hoshiarpur. Feeling dissatisfied with the abovesaid judgment of conviction, Baghel Singh appellant has preferred the present appeal.

2. During the pendency of the appeal, C.R.M. No. 3318 of 2014 has been filed to the effect that the matter has been compromised. Copy of the compromise was given to the State counsel.

3. Learned State counsel was asked to file reply. Reply has not been filed.

4. Counsel for the complainant has placed on record affidavit of Ravinder Singh complainant, wherein it is mentioned that parties have arrived at a compromise.

5. This Court in authorities reported as Lal Chand vs. State of Haryana, 2009 (5) RCR (Criminal) 838 and Chhota Singh vs. State of Punjab, 1997 (2) RCR (Criminal) 392, allowed the compounding of offence in respect of offence under Section 326 IPC at the Appellate stage, where the Court came to the conclusion that it will be a starting point in maintaining peace between the parties. So, relying upon the abovesaid authorities, the appeal stands accepted, the judgment and order of conviction stands set aside and the accused stands acquitted in view of compromise.

A copy of the judgment be sent to trial Court for compliance.