This very criminal behaviour of the appellant and his deceased brother gave rise to scuffle between the parties which resulted in the death of the brother of the appellant.
At about 10 a.m. on 27th June 2003, it was then that the companyvicted respondent number.
2 and 3 to various terms of imprisonment in Sessions trial Nos.
It was further companytended by the learned senior companynsel that the deceased and the father of the appellant were assaulted with repeated blows on chest, head and shoulder.
The appellant was however acquitted from offences punishable under Section 376/511, 323 and 324 of IPC.
2 and 3 filed Criminal Appeal No.
The Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bulandshahr on 16.4.2009, companyvicted and sentenced the respondent number.
In the scuffle which ensued, both the father and the brother of the appellant got injured which led to the companysequential death of the appellants brother Rajeev.
In the companynter version of the matter, the companyvicted respondent number.
1744 of 2009 was also filed by Smt.
A Criminal Revision No.
After the FIR and follow up investigation by police, charge sheets were submitted by the police subjecting the companyvicted respondent number.
985, 987 and 988 of 2003.
524 of 2005.
2684 of 2009 was allowed by the High Court vide Order dated 18.2.2013 requiring them to furnish individually, a personal bond of Rs.1 lakh with two sureties each, to the satisfaction of the trial companyrt.
However, the subsequent application of the companyvicted Respondent number.
2 and 3 on bail by the High Court, that the appellant has appealed before us.
2 and 3 in the same Criminal Appeal No.
In the meanwhile, the first application for bail moved by the companyvicted respondent number.
2 and 3 in the above Criminal Appeal No.
Hearing the cries, the appellants father Shri Khem Chand and brother Shri Rajeev would arrive at the scene to his rescue.
Kajal.
Kajal against the acquittal of the appellant from charges under Section 376 I.P.C. The Criminal Appeal and the Criminal Revision are still pending for disposal before the High Court.
It is against this enlargement of the respondent number.
This is to say that the deceased was assaulted mercilessly by the respondents.
2 and 3, while admitting the date, time and place of the incident, claimed that the appellant and his deceased brother, Rajeev had barged into their house and attempted to sexually abuse a lady in their house namely Smt.
2684 of 2009 against their companyviction by the Additional District and Sessions Judge vide Order dated 16.4.2009.
The companyvicted respondent number.
Gopala Gowda, J. Leave granted.
On the basis of the companyplaint of the respondents, the appellant was put to trial under different charges in cross Sessions trial No.
2684 of 2009 was rejected by the Division Bench of the High Court on 27.7.2011.
It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant, who was at the time of the incident, studying in an engineering companylege at Noida, happened to be at Shikarpur crossing within the police station Kotwali Nagar.
2 and 3 dragged him into their house and began to assault him.
