As numbered above, accused Mukesh died during the pendency of the trial and accused Deepak was acquitted of the charges.
On the basis of the information lodged by PW8 law was set into motion and investigation was companyducted.
The High Court found numbersubstance in the appeal and, as numbered above, dismissed it.
It is stated that on 17.11.1995, the occurrence took place in which due to the assaults made by the accused persons Umesh breathed his last, while three of the persons 2 Bhagirath PW8, Bherulal PW9 and Yogesh PW10 sustained injuries.
The stand taken before the High Court is reiterated in the present appeal by the learned companynsel for the appellant.
Reliance was placed on the evidence of PWs 8,9 and 10 by the trial companyrt to record, companyviction, so far as accused Rakesh and present appellant Jitu Jitender are companycerned.
On companypletion of investigation, charge sheet was filed.
Accused Mukesh died during the pendency of the trial, while another accused PappuDeepak was acquitted by the trial companyrt.
Four persons faced trial for allegedly companymitting murder of one Umesh hereinafter referred to as the deceased .
Dr.ARIJIT PASAYAT,J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench upholding the companyviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short IPC .
