His mother was also assaulted.
When his father rushed to their rescue, he was also surrounded by them and was assaulted as a result whereof, he expired.
He alleged involvement of the appellants herein in the incident.
Indisputably, a companynter case had been filed.
Similarly, one Kanesh, son of respondent number1, examined himself as P.W.8 on 22nd January 2003.
Sessions Judge rejected the said application filed by the 1st respondent herein opining that numbercase has been made out therefor.
Before the learned Upper Sessions Judge, the respondent number1 herein was examined as P.W.2 on 23rd February 1998.
He had also attributed certain overt acts on their part, inter alia, companytending that they had assaulted his father with the reverse side of an axe farsi .
A criminal miscellaneous petition filed by the 1st respondent before the High Court against the order of the learned Upper Distt.
A charge sheet was filed only against four persons, viz.,
Sessions Judge, a large number of witnesses were examined and cross examined on behalf of the accused persons.
Kishori, Jagdish, Sarjit and Sheo.
An application was filed on or about 01st April 1998 in terms of Section 319 of the Code for summoning the appellants herein as accused.
Upon investigation, a final form was submitted in favour of the appellants.
By reason of an order dated 29th May 2003, the learned Upper Distt.
Before the learned Upper Distt.
B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.
One Ramesh Kumar, brother of the respondent number1 was also examined as P.W. 7 on 22nd January 2003.
Scope and application of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short, the Code is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th November 2005 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Rajasthan whereby and whereunder the order dated 29th May 2003 passed by the learned Upper District Sessions Judge Fast Track , Sikar, refusing to summon the appellants herein as accused, was set aside.
A First Information Report FIR was lodged by the 1st respondent alleging that his wife was attacked by nine persons including the five appellants herein.
