Surjit Singh, J.
1. Through these two appeals, appellants have challenged the judgments dated 25-6-2004 of learned Additional Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court), Una, delivered in two cross cases. In one ease, which has given rise to Appeal No. 264 of 2004, the appellants, namely Dilbag Singh, Ranjit Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, have been held guilty of offences under Sections 307, 323 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code, for allegedly causing injuries to Shiv Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Didar Singh and Sukhdev Singh, by means of sharp edged as also blunt weapons in an incident that took place on 8-11-1999, at a place called Sanoli, falling within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Una. The said appellants have been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and to pay fine of Rs. 20.000/- each, for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of two years each.
2. In the second appeal, i.e. Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2004, which has arisen from the cross case appellants Satish Kumar and Shiv Kumar have been convicted of offences, under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for five years each and to pay fine of Rs, 10,000/- each and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period for one year each.
3. Facts relevant for the disposal of the appeals may be noticed. On 8-11-1999, around 9.30 p.m. a fight took place between two groups of man, at a place called Sanoli in Una district. One group comprising of Dilbag Singh, Ranjit Singh and Mukhtiar Singh (appellants in Criminal No. 264 of 2004) and four more persons, namely Gurmit Singh, Multan Singh, Didar Singh and Balbir Singh, allegedly used swords and other lethal weapons and caused injuries on the heads and other vital parts of four persons named Satish Kumar, Pawan Kumar, Didar Singh and Sukhdev Singh, in an attempt to commit their murder. Matter was reported to the police, who on completion of investigation filed a report, under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure charging the appellants and their co-accused with offences under Sections 147, 148, 307, 324, 323, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act. All the seven challaned persons were tried by the learned Additional! Sessions Judge (Presiding Officer. Fast Track Court), Una. Four of them, namely Gurmit Singh, Multan Singh, Didar Singh and Balbir Singh were acquitted, but the present appellants were convicted and sentenced, as aforesaid.
4. The appellants in the other case, namely Satish Kumar and Shiv Kumar (in Criminal Appeal No. 286 of 2004) along with two others persons, named Bakhshish Singh and Pawan Kumar, against whom a cross case was registered, in respect of the very incident in regard to which Dilbag Singh and others (appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2004), were sent up for trial for offences under Sections 325 and 323 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations against them were that they had caused grievous as also simple hurts to Ranjit Singh and Dilbag Singh (appellants/ accused in other case), by means of Dandas. Though the case was triable by the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, nonetheless it was committed to the Sessions Court being a cross case arising out of the same incident, out of which the other case which was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions arose. The learned Presiding Officer of the Fast Track Court, convicted the present two appellants, namely Satish Kumar and Shiv Kumar and sentenced them as aforesaid. Their other two co-accused were however acquitted.
5. Applications, under Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, have been filed, in both the cases, by the injured seeking leave of the Court, to compound the offences, The compromise deed signed by all the injured (in both the cases) has also been filed.
6. It. may be stated at the very outset that offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code of which the appellants in Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2004 have been convicted by the learned trial Court is not compoundable, as it does not fall in either of the two tables of compoundable offences, given in Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Learned counsel for the appellants (in Cr. Appeal No. 264 of 2004) relying upon a single bench ruling of this Court in Piare Lal v. State of H.P., Criminal Appeal No. 16 of 1997 decided on October 21, 1997, urged that compounding of even such offences which are not included in the above referred to tables given In Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be permitted by the High Court in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The view taken in this case can't be endorsed as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bankat v. State of Maharashtra, 2005 Crl LJ 646 has ruled authoritatively that High Court in exercise of their inherent power can't permit compounding of non-compoundable offences, in view of specific bar contained in Sub-section (9) of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
7. However, if on appraisal of an evidence of the case (Cr. Appeal No. 264 of 2004) this Court finds that the appellants have not committed an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, but some other offence which may be compoundable, the prayer of the injured persons for grant of permission to compound the offence(s) with the appellants, can be considered on merits.
8. We have heard the learned Additional Advocate General (Sh S. D. Vasudeva) on behalf of the respondent, as also the learned Counsel for the appellants in both the cases. After having heard the learned Counsel for the appellants, as also, the learned Additional Advocate General, in respect of the merits of Criminal Appeal No. 264 of 2004 and having gone through the record of the learned trial Court, we are of the considered view that the conviction of appellants Diltaag Singh, Ranjif Singh and Mukhtiar Singh, for offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, is not justified. No doubt, the three appellants used swords and other lethal weapons and caused injuries to the victims on their heads, but the description of the injuries, as observed by the Medical Officer at the time of medical examination of the, injured persons, namely Shiv Kumar, Pawan Kumar Didar Singh and Sukhdev Singh shows that none of the injuries found on the persons of the aforesaid victims was more than 2 ram deep, meaning thereby that no blow of sword or any other weapon was given with such a force as could have caused an injury that would have resulted in the death of any of the injured persons in ordinary course of nature. In other words, there was no intention on the part of any of the appellants to cause any injury, which could have caused the death of any of the victims in the ordinary course of nature. In fact from the depth of the injuries, which is not more than 2 mm in the case of any injury, it can legitimately be presumed that they intended to cause only simple injuries. It is also pertinent to state that the Doctor who conducted the medico legal examination of all the injured four persons, opined that all the injuries were simple in nature.
9. In view of the above stated position, we set aside the conviction of the appellants, for the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code. From the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants are proved to have committed an offence of voluntarily causing simple hurt, by means of sharp edged weapon. Accordingly, they are held guilty of only this offence. The appellants in the other case have been held guilty of offences under Sections 325 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted accordingly by the learned trial Court,
10. Offences under Sections 325 and 324 of the Indian Penal Code are compoundable with the permission of the Court, per Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Offence under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code is compoundable even without the permission of Court. We find that these are fit cases for according permission to the Injured persons to compound the offences, because the injured and complainants, in both the cases are from rural area, where this type of violent incidents, involving use of criminal force do happen in the heat of passion, but soon thereafter, the fighting persons/groups patch up their differences, the appellants and the injured in both the cross appeals are poor persons and for maintaining peace and tranquility in the village, it is desirable that the compromise which they have arrived at, is approved by the Court by granting permission to compound the offences. Accordingly, we grant the permission to the injured persons in both the cases to compound the offences.
11. As already noticed, the compromise deed signed by all the injured is already on the record, per which the offences committed in the course of incident, in question, stand compounded. Now when the offences have been compounded, with the permission of the Court, the appellants in both the appeals are entitled to acquittal, Resultantly, both the appeals are accepted, judgments challenged in the two appeals are set-aside and as a sequel thereto the conviction and the sentences of the appellants are set aside and they are acquitted. The amount(s) of fine, if paid, be refunded to the appellants, in both the cases.
12. This judgment be placed on the record of Appeal No. 264/2004 and its authenticated copy on the record of Second Appeal No. 286 of 2004.