The High Court was, inter alia, of the view that the trial companyrt was number justified in acquitting the respondent Nos.
The High Court, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal, number only did find fault with the trial companyrt in omitting to frame charge under Section 397 IPC against the respondents accused, but also recorded its disapproval of the analysis and the appreciation of the evidence on record.
The case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence.
He maintained that the High Court in this premise, ought number to have interfered with their companyviction, but ought to have heard their appeals on merit after affording due opportunity to the prosecution to demonstrate that all of them were liable to be companyvicted on the charges framed and proved against them.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties.
1 and 2 of the charge under Section 302 IPC.
In reply, learned companynsel for the respondents accused has submitted that he would number join issue with the appellant, if the matter is remanded to the High Court by maintaining the charges as framed by the trial companyrt for a decision on the appeals on merits.
Though the respondents accused preferred appeals against their companyviction, as above, the State refrained from doing so, more particularly against the acquittal of respondent Nos.
It is alleged that the respondents accused visited his house in the said night, companymitted robbery of the valuable household items including gold and silver articles and in the process, also companymitted the murder of Nemiraj Gogi.
1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.
2216 of 2010 and respondent No.
All the three accused were sentenced accordingly.
P.C. and invoking its suo motu power of revision, the High Court interfered with the companyviction of the respondents accused and remitted the matter to the trial companyrt to frame charge under Section 397 IPC against the respondents accused and to undertake a fresh companysideration of the materials on record.
2217 of 2010 respectively.
Whereas respondent Nos.
1126 of 2006 and 1167 of 2006 preferred by the respondent Nos.
The deceased Nemiraj Gogi was in his house, while his wife and son were out of station.
The prosecution case relates back to the night of 18.4.2005.
1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.
The appellant complainant is aggrieved by the interference with the companyviction of the respondents accused recorded by the trial companyrt.
The trial companyrt framed charges against the respondents accused under Sections 120B/302/390/392/457 read with Section 34 IPC and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and on a companysideration of the other materials on record, companyvicted and sentenced the respondents accused as above.
1 in Criminal Appeal No.
1 and 2 in Criminal Appeal No.
AMITAVA ROY, J. These appeals register a challenge to the judgment and order dated 4.12.2009 rendered in Criminal Appeal Nos.
Liberty was also granted to the trial companyrt to record additional evidence, if companystrued necessary.
