21. The Supreme Court in the case of Ram Pujan Vs. State of U.P. Reported in (1973) 2 SCC 456 has held as under :

“7. The appellants during the pendency of the appeal were not released on bail and are stated to have already undergone a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of more than four months. As the parties who belong to one family have settled their dispute, it is, in our opinion, not necessary to keep the appellants in jail for a longer period. The major offence for which the appellants have been convicted is no doubt non-compoundable, but the fact of compromise can be taken into account in determining the quantum of sentence. It would, in our opinion, meet the ends of justice if the sentence of imprisonment awarded to the appellants is reduced to the period already undergone provided each of the appellants pays a fine of Rs 1500 in addition to the period of imprisonment already undergone for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the of the Indian Penal Code. In default of payment of fine, each of the appellants shall undergo rigorous imprisonment for a total period of one year for the offence under Section 326 read with Section 34 of the of the Indian Penal Code. Out of the fine, if realised, Rs 2000 should be paid to Ram Sewak and Rs 2000 to Ram Samujh as compensation. We order accordingly”.

22. The Supreme Court in the case of Puttaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2009) 1 SCC 711 has held as under :

“12. What emerges from all these decisions is that even if an offence is not compoundable within the scope of Section 320 of the Code of Criminal Procedure the Court may, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, reduce the sentence imposed while maintaining the conviction”.

23. The Supreme Court in the case of Gulab Das and others Vs. State of M.P. Reported in AIR 2012 SC 888 has held as under :

“7. In the light of the submissions made at the bar the only question that falls for determination is whether the prayer for composition of the offence under Section 307, IPC could be allowed having regard to the compromise arrived at between the parties. Our answer is in the negative. This Court has in a long line of decisions ruled that offences which are not compoundable under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C. cannot be allowed to be compounded even if there is any settlement between the complainant on the one hand and the accused on the other. Reference in this regard may be made to the decisions of this Court in Ram Lal and Anr. v. State of J and K (1999) 2 SCC 213 : (AIR 1999 SC 895), and Ishwar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 15 SCC 667 : (AIR 2009 SC 675). We have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the prayer for permission to compound the offence for which Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 stand convicted.

8. Having said that we are of the view that the settlement/compromise arrived at between the parties can be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the quantum of sentence to be awarded to the appellants. That is precisely the approach which this Court has adopted in the cases referred to above. Even when the prayer for composition has been declined this Court has in the two cases mentioned above taken the fact of settlement between the parties into consideration while dealing with the question of sentence. Apart from the fact that a settlement has taken place between the parties, there are few other circumstances that persuade us to interfere on the question of sentence awarded to the appellants. The incident in question had taken place in the year 1994. The parties are related to each other. Both Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 were at the time of the incident in their twenties. It is also noteworthy that the incident had led to registration of a cross case against the complainant party in which the trial Court has already convicted Veeraji and others for offences punishable under Sections 325/34 and 323, IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 300/- and imprisonment of six months under Section 323, IPC. We are told that the parties having settled the matter, will approach the High Court for an appropriate order in the appeal pending before it. Moreso, the appellants have already served substantial part of the sentence awarded to them”.

24. Thus, it is clear that where the offence is noncompoundable and the parties have come to a compromise, then the factum of compromise can always be considered while determining the question of sentence.

25. If the facts of the present appeal are considered, then it would be clear that according to the prosecution case, the appellant had fired on Rajesh Sharma but the gun shot missed and caused pellet injuries to Ramjilal who was sitting under the tree. The appellant has been convicted under Section 307 of I.P.C. for firing at complainant Rajesh Sharma. The appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 324 of I.P.C. for causing pellet injuries to Ramjilal. The other injuries found on the body of complainant Rajesh Sharma were simple in nature and appellant Ramlakhan and Siyaram who had caused those injuries, were sentenced with fine and for the period already undergone by him. It is submitted by the Counsel for the appellants that, during trial, the appellant No.1 had remained in jail from 5-11-1993 to 24-12-1993 i.e., for a period of 50 days during trial and he has remained in jail for a period of 55 days after Trial, as he was granted bail by this Court by order dated 17-10-2007. Thus, he has remained in jail for a period of 105 days. The complainant Rajesh Sharma, had also filed a Criminal Revision for enhancement of sentence which was registered as Cr.R. No.862/2007. The complainant has withdrawn the criminal revision in the light of the compromise arrived at between the parties.