Additionally, after the charge sheet was filed, a protest petition was filed by the companyplainant which was dismissed.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows FIR was lodged on 29.05.1999 by Manzoor Baitha alleging that his parents, brother and sisters had a fight with his family members.
No.693 of 2004.
Only three persons were arrayed as accused persons and the present appellants were number arrayed as accused.
It appears that a protest petition was filed before charges were framed on 14.03.2000 but the same was rejected.
Charges were framed on 14.3.2000.
P.C. was filed and was allowed and two more witnesses i.e. PWs 4 and 5 were examined.
The revisional companyrt did number deal with these aspects and came to an abrupt companyclusion that all the PWs have stated that the appellants have companymitted overt acts and their names also find place in the protest petition.
Undisputedly, numberovert act has been attributed to the appellants by PWs 1, 2 and 3.
By order dated 10.09.2004, learned Additional Sessions Judge set aside the order of learned Judicial Magistrate, Motihari in G.R. No.996 of 99/Tr.
P.C. was number maintainable and in any event was mala fide.
P.C. on 19.02.2003.
It is to be numbered that PWs 4 and 5 were examined on 6.1.2004 pursuant to the order in the application filed under Section 311 Cr.
A protest petition was filed.
1305 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. Crl.
Even their evidence in numberway companynects the appellants to the alleged incident.
The High Court dismissed the revision petition filed on the ground that there are materials against the appellants.
There was mention of their names in the FIR.
Thereafter on 07.05.2003, an application in terms of Section 311 Cr.
Nothing has been stated about the appellants by PWs 4 and 5.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted.
The appellants call in question legality of the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court dismissing the Criminal Revision filed by them.
Recording of prosecution evidence companymenced on 16.04.2001 and companytinued till 29.04.2002.
Challenge before the High Court was to the revisional order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Motihari.
Cognizance was taken on 27.9.1999 and charge sheet was filed on 09.09.1999.
Two witnesses were examined on 6.1.2004.
An application under Section 319 Cr.
The prosecution evidence was thereafter closed and the statement of accused persons was recorded in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in short Cr.
P.C. was filed on 14.01.2004 stating that new evidence has surfaced which requires the trial of the present appellants.
No.6219 of 2005 DR.
Annu Siddiqui hit on the head of his son Akbar Hawari with the butt of a pistol and he also snatched away a wrist watch of his son.
P.C. The petition filed under Section 319 Cr.
P.C. The High Courts order, to say the least, is bereft of any foundation.
P.C. was number filed earlier.
PWs 1, 2 and 3, who were examined on 16.04.2001, 8.01.2002 and 29.04.2002 merely stated about the alleged presence of the appellants.
