1. Both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and hence shall be disposed of by the same judgment. Appellants have been convicted and sentenced by the Ist Additional Sessions Judge Guna (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No. 272/98, dated 11th February, 2000 by which appellant No.1 Gudda has been convicted under section 307 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/-. Appellant No.2 Raghunath has been convicted under section 307 read with section 34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for eight years with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulation. Appellant No.2 Raghunath has further been convicted under section 323 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months Criminal Appeal No. 406/2000 has also filed by the appellant No.1, Gudda from Jail.

2. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by the counsel that Criminal Appeal No. 262/2000 was filed on behalf of both the appellants but subsequently, appellant No.1 Gudda also filed a separate appeal from Jail which is Criminal Appeal No. 40612000. The subsequent jail appeal No. 406/2000 is, therefore, filed because in Criminal Appeal No. 262/2000 both the appellants have filed appeal against the judgment of conviction and sentence.

3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that on 28.7.1998, at about 9 in the night, complainant Voreram (PW 4) lodged the report at the Police Station Aron which is Ex. P-3 to the effect that the injured Pratap Singh (PW 2) is younger brother of him and both were residing at village Barbatpura but their houses are adjoining to each other. He saw that both the appellants are going towards house of Pratap Singh (PW 2). Appellant Gudda called Pratap Singh (PW 2) from his house. When Pratap Singh (PW 2) came out from his house, appellant Gudda asked him why he had beaten Hajoo. The both the appellants scuffled with him. Appellant Raghunath caught collar of his shirt while appellant Gudda caught hair of Pratap Singh (PW 2). He called his brother Voreram (PW 4). When his brother Voreram (PW 4) came to the sport for rescue, appellant Raghunath inflicted injury to his hand by a lathi. At the same moment, appellant Gudda took a knife from his pocket and inflicted to the stomach of Pratap Singh (PW 2). Gudda ran away from the spot. Appellant Raghunath was caught hold at the spot. On hearing the noise, Raghuveer (PW 5), wife of Pratap Singh Ramkalibai (PW 3) came there. Pratap Singh (PW 2) was laying on the ground. Thereafter he was taken to the police station and lodged the report by Voreram (PW 4) and the enmity was due to Marpeet with Hajoobai because the appellants were friendly living with Hajoobai. The first information report is Ex. P-3. Then the injured were sent to the medical for examination. The MLC reports of Pratap Singh (PW 2) and Voreram (PW 4) are Ex. P-l and Ex. P-2. Pratap Singh (PW 2) was referred to Guna Hospital. He remained in the hospital for about 26 days. After investigation charge-sheet was filed and appellants were convicted accordingly as stated in above para one.

4. On behalf of appellant No.1 Gudda, it is submitted by the counsel that as per report of Superintendent Jail, Gwalior, dated 8.3.2007, appellant Gudda released from the jail after cmpletion of his sentence on 30.6.2004 and he was not detained in custody at Bhopal jail. Therefore, the appeal against the appellant No.1 Gudda abets and hereby dismissed accordingly.

5. Learned counsel on behalf of appellant No.2. Raghunath submitted that the charge with the aid of section 34 of IPC is not made out against the appellant Raghunath. Secondly regarding section 323 of IPC, a compromise application was filed in the lower Court on 17.11.1999 but no order was passed by the learned trial Court in-spite of fact that both the complainant and the appellant entered into compromise in the case. Therefore, in view of the above compromise, he is entitled for acquittal against the charge