KALLOO MUNSHI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(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.

(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.