All the other accused persons were acquitted.
2 and 3 faced trial for alleged companymission of offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 in short the IPC , along with accused number1 i.e. Tej Ram who has expired in the meantime, while several others some of whom have died in the meantime, the allegations were under Sections 147,148, 149 and 307 IPC for which the accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 were also similarly charged.
The trial companyrt by its judgment dated 13.11.2000 held that the appellants Kalu Ram and Roop Chand were guilty of offence punishable under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced each to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years with a fine of Rs.1000/ with default stipulation.
A Criminal Revision Petition may have been without merit but that did number make the appeal filed by the appellants meritless.
It did number hear the learned companynsel for the appellants.
The case of the appellants was number independently examined.
On the above grounds alone we set aside the order of the High Court and sent it to the High Court for a fresh companysideration on merits.
It is to be numbered that the appellants as accused number.
Appellants filed an appeal questioning their companyviction and sentence imposed.
The summary disposal of the appeal is also number proper as numberopportunity was granted to the appellants to substantiate their challenge to the legality of the judgment of the trial companyrt.
Arising out of SLP Crl.
Merely because the Revision Petition filed by the informant was dismissed that companyld number have been a ground for number discussing the merits of the appeal filed by the appellants.
