- (1.) M. C. Agarwal, J. This is an appeal by appellants Kalloo Munshi, Zia Uddin, Riasuddin and Shahab Uddin against their conviction for an offence under Section 307, IPC. Appellant Ziauddin was con victed under Section 307, IPC and sen tenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. The other appel lants were found guilt' under Section 307/34, IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. The judgment and order under ap peal is dated 28-4-80 and was passed by the Additional Sessions Judge VIII, Bareilly in Sessions trial No. 112 of 1978.
(2.) DURING the pendency of this appeal appellant No. 3 Riazuddin has died and by an order dated 9-9-97 his appeal was dis missed as having abated. We are left with the remaining three appellants. I have heard Sri Satish Trivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned A. G. A. The prosecution story briefly stated was that a deep rooted enmity existed be tween accused Kalloo Munshi and his three sons Ziauddin, Riyazuddin and Shahabuddin, the appellants, on the one hand and Humid Khan and his sister's son Chotey Khan on the other. On 30-9-97 in the night a Milad Sharif was to be held at the chaupal of the house of Hamid Khan and the village people had collected there to participate in the function. A patromax lantern was burning. Accused Kalloo Munshi alongwith his three sons arrived at the spot hurling abuses. Ziauddin carried a licenced gun belonging to his brother Ri yazuddin. The people who were present there objected to the conduct of the ac cused. Ziauddin said that he would teach a lesson to Hamid Khan for arranging Milad Sharif at his Chaupal. Saying so he fired from his gun as a result of which Hamid Khan, Aziz Khan, Mohd. Shaft, Mohd. Fashi, Jhuman Khan, Mati- ur Rehman, Ballan Khan and Laley Khan were injured and FIR was lodged. The appellants were prosectued. At the trial the prosecution had examined Hamid Khan, PW-1, Chotey Khan, PW-2. Subedar Khan PW-3, Dr. R,c. Goyal PW-4 and Investigating Offi cer Rahtu Singh PW-5. The learned Sessions Judge accepted the prosecution evi dence and came to the conclusion that the guilt of the accused was established be yond reasonable doubt. He found that more than one shot was fired and there was strong motive to commit the crime. He, therefore, convicted appellant Ziauddin who had fired the shot for an offence un der Section 307, IPC and convicted the other accused under Sections 307/34. IPC and awarded punishment of rigorous im prisonment for a period of four years each.
(3.) DURING the pendency of the appeal an application was moved stating that the parties have compromised. The application is dated 17-2-97 which states that appel lant Riazuddin and the injured Hamid Khan and Kaley Khan have died and that on the intervention of the well-wishers of the both the parties they have arrived at peaceful compromise between them and now both the parties are wishing to live friendly with each other. Affidavits of Shahabuddin, appellant No, 4, Kalloo Munshi, appellant No. 1 and Ziauddin, appellant No. 2 have been annexed to that petiton, which was sent to the Chief Judi cial Magistrate, Bareilly, for verification where Ballan Khan, Aziz Khan, Mohd. Fashi, Jumman Khan, Subedar Khan, Shakir Khan, Suleman Khan, Chottey Khan, Mohd. Shafi, Matiur Rehman as well as the appellants verified the same. The compromise petition does not state that the offence which is the subject-matter of the present appeal has been com pounded between the parties. What is stated that now both the parties are wish ing to live friendly with each other. The compromise also does not state whether legal representatives of the persons who were injured and who were since dead are parties to the settlement. Therefore, it could not be said that the offence has been le gally compounded. Learned Counsel for the appellant made a frail attempt to challenge the findings of fact recorded by the Court be low. The evidence on record shows that as many as eight persons had received gun shot injuries. The medical examination reports are on record. Many of the injuries are on the face of the victims. Mohd. Fashi had received an injury in the left eye. Hamid Khan had received several gun shot wounds on his chest and Mohd. Shafi had lost one of his toe. The statements of Hamid Khan, PW-1, Chottey Khan, PW-2 and Subedar Khan PW-3, who were eye witnesses of the occurrence were reliable and corroborated by the medical evidence as well as evidence of the Investigating Officer, who found blood etc. on the al leged place of occurrence. Therefore, so far as the merits of the conviction are concerned, the charge against the accused was proved beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment under appeal in that regard deserves to be affirmed. Now as regards the question of sentence, as stated above the parties have come to terms. Although the so called compromise is not happily worded but there appears to be an inten tion that the victims wanted to forgive the appellants and forget the past and parties wished each other to live cordially hence forth. This is a circumstance that has to be taken into account in determining whether now after a lapse of more than 20 years the appellants should be required to undergo the remaining part of their sentence. Each of them had already been in custody for sometime during the trial and then after conviction of Court of sessions till they were bailed out by this Court.;