B.N. Agrawal and S.H. Kapadia, JJ.

1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Appellant I (Jetha Ram) was convicted by the trial court under Section 326 of the Penal Code (for short "I.P.C.") and Appellants 2 and 3 (Balu Ram and Kishna Ram) under Section 326 read with Section 34, I.P.C. and they were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000 each ; in default imprisonment for a period of four months. On appeal being preferred by the Appellants, the High Court maintained the conviction, but reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year. Hence, this appeal by special leave.

4. Before this Court the parties have filed a compromise petition. The offence under Section 326, I.P.C. is not compoundable, as such it is not possible to record the compromise, but it is well-settled that though compromise cannot be recorded for a non-compoundable offence, but the effect of compromise can be taken into consideration while awarding the sentence. The Appellants have remained in custody for a period of about five months. In our view, the ends of justice would be met if the sentence of imprisonment awarded against the Appellants is reduced to the period already undergone.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and while maintaining conviction of the Appellants, their sentence of imprisonment is reduced to the period already undergone. The Appellants who are in custody are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.