Pursuant to exhortation, accused inflicted injuries to his son and Hari son of Parkash with their respective weapons.
His son had parked his motorcycle in front of the shop of Nande at bus stand.
It was alleged that on 12.06.2016 at about 1.30 pm, he along with his son Bhajji and Hari son of Parkash were going from Panipat to his village Chhajpur Khurd on his tractor.
The Investigating Officer companyducted the investigation and found ten persons involved in the said incident.
In the meantime, his brother Mahender came there and they removed both the injured to Prem Hospital where Hari son of Parkash succumbed to his injuries on 14.06.2016 during treatment.
That, thereafter the trial proceeded against the four accused persons against whom the chargesheet challan was filed.
They were armed with swards, pistols, hockeys, iron bars and gandasi etc.
Rajesh son of Prem exhorted to kill both of them because they were pressing hard for their ejectment from panchayat land.
Therefore, his son Bhajji and Hari son of Parkash alighted from the tractor to pick up the motorcycle.
Sumit son of Jagdish was armed with pistol, Rinky son of Rai Singh was armed with iron bar, Sunder son of Om Singh was armed with wooden baton, Rajesh son of Prem was armed with sword, Jagdish son of Devi Singh was armed with lathi, Tejpal son of Nar Singh was armed with iron bar, Joni son of Sahab Singh was armed with wooden handle of spade, Sachin son of Ruhla Ram was armed with sword and Joginder son of Sahi Ram was having gandasi with him.
When his son picked up the motorcycle, in the meantime, Sunil son of Jagpal came on Splendor motorcycle.
3.1 That all the accused named in the FIR were arrested.
Both of them were crossexamined by the defence.
Ankush son of Rajinder was on his motorcycle make Splendor and Jagdish son of Devi Singh and Tejpal son of Nar Singh were sitting behind him.
180 on 12.06.2016 at Police Station Sadar, Panipat against ten accused, including the appellants herein for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, 302, 307 and 506 of the IPC.
Nothing is on record whether at that time any specific closure report was submitted by the investigating officer or number.
When he raised alarm, accused sped away on their motorcycles threatening to kill them in case any action is taken against them.
They attacked his son Bhajji and Hari son of Parkash.
Ravit son of Ramesh and Vicky son of Jaswant were sitting on pillion behind him on motorcycle.
Sheela son of Paras was on his motorcycle Pulsar and Sumit son of Jagdish, Rinku son of Rai Singh were sitting behind him on his motorcycle.
Ravit son of Ramesh was armed with a hockey, Vicky son of Jaswant was armed with wooden baton, Sheela son of Paras was armed with gandasi.
Joni son of Sahab Singh was on his motorcycle Bullet and Sachin son of Khilla was sitting behind him.
However, the Investigating Officer found that the appellants herein six in numbers were number present at the site of incident.
Both of them were even crossexamined.
Both of them companyroborated the case of the prosecution and categorically stated that the appellants herein were also present at the time of incident.
During the trial, the depositions of P.W.1 and P.W.2 were recorded.
Sunder son of Om Singh was on motorcycle Bullet and Rajesh son of Prem and Sanjay son of Bishni were sitting behind him on the said motorcycle.
That, thereafter the trial proceeded further against the remaining accused against whom the challan chargesheet was filed.
That the learned Magistrate directed to release the appellants.
The prosecution examined two witnesses P.W.1, the original informant and P.W.2, Bhajji, the injured eye witness.
The said order has been companyfirmed by the High Court.
In the deposition, P.W.1 and W.2 specifically stated the overacts by the appellants herein and the role played by them and categorically stated that at the time of the incident companymission of the offence, the appellants herein were also present and they participated in the companymission of the offence.
It is required to be numbered that, in the present case, the original companyplainantfirst informant specifically named ten persons as accused, including the appellants herein.
R. Shah, J. Leave granted.
However, thereafter after the investigation, the investigating officer filed the charge sheet challan against four accused persons only and numberchallan chargesheet was filed against the appellants herein.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 19.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Revision CRR No.
That, thereafter, on the application submitted by the original companyplainant submitted under Section 319 of the CrPC, the learned Magistrate found a prima facie case against the appellants herein and summoned the appellants herein to face the trial along with other companyccused.
521 of 2018 by which the High Court has dismissed the said revision petition preferred by the appellants herein and has companyfirmed the order dated 28.10.2017 passed by the learned Trial Court, by which the appellants herein were summoned to face Signature Not Verified the trial for the offences under Sections 148, 149, 323, 324, 325, Digitally signed by VISHAL ANAND Date 2019.05.02 162711 IST Reason 302, 307 and 506 of the IPC, the appellants herein have preferred the present appeal.
