SURYA KANT, J. - (1.) These two Criminal Appeals, No. 1489 of 2012 emanating from the judgment and order dated 27th November, 2009 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench and No. 1488 of 2012 arising out of judgment and order dated 9th January, 2009 passed by the High Court of Karnataka, though, pertain to two different and distinct occurrences, but are proposed to be disposed of by way of a common order as the short question of law involved in both these appeals is identical. BRIEF FACTS OF CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1489 OF 2012
(2.) The prosecution version, arising out of FIR dated 3rd November 2000, Police Station Ambah, Morena, M.P. is that on account of certain monetary dispute, the Appellants abused and assaulted Padam Singh (Complainant). Appellant No.1 is alleged to have struck the Complainant with a pharsa, which resultantly cut off the little finger of his left hand. Appellant No.2 also struck lathi blows on the body of the Complainant. Appellants were thereafter committed for trial under Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, 'IPC ') and Section 3 of the Prevention of Atrocities (Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1989. Upon analyzing the evidence, the Learned Judicial Magistrate(FC), Ambah, convicted the Appellants under Sections 294, 323 and 326 read with 34 IPC with a maximum sentence of three years under Section 326 read with 34 IPC. They were acquitted of the remaining charges.
(3.) The Appellants assailed their conviction before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ambah. During the pendency of that Appeal, the Appellants and the Complainant reconciled their difference(s) and a compromise ensued between them on 13th September 2006. Learned Sessions Judge took notice of the settlement, moved jointly by the parties, and compounded the offences under Sections 294 and 323 read with 34 IPC, acquitting the Appellants of the same. The Court, nevertheless, maintained their conviction under Section 326 read with 34 IPC, since the said offence is 'non­compoundable ' within the scheme of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, taking into consideration the settlement between the parties, reduced the quantum of sentence from Rigorous Imprisonment of three years to one year. Still aggrieved, the Appellants preferred a Criminal Revision before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, challenging their conviction and sentence. Alternatively, they sought compounding of offence under Section 326 IPC in light of the compromise. However, such a prayer was not acceded to by the High Court, re­iterating that the offence is 'non­compoundable '. The High Court, even so, further reduced the duration of imprisonment to the period already undergone by the Appellants. The Appellants are now before this Court, seeking compounding of their Actus Reus under Section 326 IPC in view of the settlement between parties. BRIEF FACTS OF CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1488 OF 2012 ;