(1.) FROM the judgment of the appellate Court that the complainant had compounded the offence with the petitioners. Since the offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, was not compoundable, the conviction of Sarabjit Singh and Baljit Singh, petitioners, under Section 326 and 326/34 of the Indian Penal Code respectively was maintained, but the petitioners were acquitted under Section 324 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioners are sentenced to four months' rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/ - each or in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for one month each under Section 326 and 326/34, Indian Penal Code. Mr. Sandhu says that they have actually undergone two months of their substantive sentence. Sarabjit Singh petitioner is 28 years of age and Baljit Singh petitioner is 19 years of age. There is nothing against their character and antecedents on the record. In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Ram Pujan and other v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1973 S.C. 2418, although the offence under Section 326, Indian Penal Code, is non -compoundable, but the factum of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. In my view, ends of justice will be amply met if the sentence of the petitioners is reduced to that already undergone. It is ordered accordingly. However, the sentence of fine awarded by the lower appellate Court is maintained. Fine, if realized, shall be paid to the injured, who be informed.
(2.) IN the result, the revision petition is dismissed in limine except for the alteration in the sentence as indicated above. Revision petition dismissed.