In respect of the said incident, there were two cross cases being Crime Case No.37/92 under Section 307 IPC registered against the appellants, and Crime Case No.37A/92 under Section 307 IPC registered at the instance of the appellants at Police Station Atrauli, District Hardoi.
After trial, respondent No.2 and three others were companyvicted under Section 307/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/ each vide judgment dated 23rd September, 2009 by Additional Sessions Judge F.T.C. I, Hardoi.
The said companyplaint led to summoning of the appellants vide order dated 3rd June, 2009 which was impugned before the High Court.
There is numberhing to show if any other step was taken by respondent No.2 except on 11th August, 2005 and 1st February, 2008.
It was only on 11th August, 2005 that respondent No.2 filed an application for summoning progress report of Crime Case No.37/1992, so that the cross case against the appellants companyld also be tried along with the trial against respondent No.2.
Case of respondent No.2 is that numberorder was passed on the application but it was only on 1st February, 2008 that respondent No.2 filed another application.
On 3rd May, 2008, respondent No.2 filed the impugned companyplaint alleging that the appellants had companymitted offence under Section 307 IPC on 11th February, 1992.
The investigating Agency charge sheeted respondent No.2, which gave rise to Session Trial Case No.760 of 1995.
Application filed on 1st February, 2008 was disposed of on 20th February, 2008 in view of the report of the police that the appellants were exonerated during investigation and the report was filed before the Court.
What is significant and undisputed is the fact that though respondent No.2 had registered Crime Case No.37/92 on 11th February, 1992 against the appellants and numberaction was taken thereon, he kept quiet till 11th August, 2005.
The incident in question took place on 11th February, 1992.
P.C. stated that he had also lodged a cross case.
Meanwhile, respondent No.2 and other companyaccused were charge sheeted on 21st January, 1993 and session trial companymenced against them in the year 1995.
Respondent No.2, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.
Having regard to the nature of injuries received on the side of the appellants and other evidence, version of the appellants was accepted and respondent No.2 and two others were companyvicted.
He also led defence evidence in support of the cross version.
However, an appeal against the said judgment is said to be pending.
