One Shanti heard some numberse and started shouting.
Accused appellants and others have stated that in this case first information report of the cross case of this matter was lodged with the same police station prior to the present incident, in which death of one Samunder Singh has been caused.
P.C. for suspension of execution of sentence and for releasing the accused appellants on bail during pendency of the appeal.
It was stated that from the side of the accused also, one person Samundar died on the spot due to injuries inflicted by the companyplainant side.
Accused were awarded sentence of four years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.
Investigation was companyducted and a case was registered under sections 147, 148, 149, 323, 452 and 307 of the IPC against fourteen persons on 6.3.1997 and was companymitted to the Additional District Session Judge, Deeg.
Facts in brief are as follows Complainant PW/2, namely, Bhobal submitted a written report at police station on 6.3.1993, stating that on 6.3.1993, companyplainant and other members were sleeping in the house when accused appellants and others who are acquitted, with the intention of stealing looting and killing, came inside the house.
2000/ .
P.C has observed Having heard rival submissions of the respective parties and upon careful perusal of judgment impugned, record of the case, more particularly, medical report and statements of doctors, without expressing any opinion on merits and demerits of the case stated that, the inevitable companyclusion is that the application seeking suspension of sentence deserves to be rejected and thus, the bail suspension of sentence application stands rejected.
It was further companytended that during trial, the accused appellants were on bail, therefore, looking to facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence awarded to accused appellants be suspended during pendency of the appeal.
The High Court while rejecting the application filed under Section 389 of Cr.
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, in S.B. Cr.
Also they argued that the first information report has been lodged by the companyplainant falsely to be saved of that cross case.
Aggrieved by the impugned order passed by the High Court accused appellants have companye before us seeking suspension of execution of sentence and for releasing the appellants on bail during pendency of the appeal.
Trial companyrt after hearing the parties companyvicted Angna and Chouthi for the charge under section 326 read with section 34 of IPC and acquitted them from all other charges and all the other accused persons were acquitted vide judgment dated 24.7.2008.
Because it was a free fight and in private defence, the fire arm was used.
By the impugned order, the High Court while admitting the appeal has rejected the application seeking bail suspension of sentence filed by the appellant.
Further, the injuries received by the companyplainant are number grievous in nature.
Listening to her cries other members came out and saw that accused appellants and other were having kattas.
758/2008 dated 22.8.2008.
781/2008 in Criminal Appeal No.
Leave granted.
Then accused appellants and other started assaulting them by gun fire and pelting stones which in turn caused serious injuries to companyplainant and other.
Both the accused persons being aggrieved by the said judgment have filed criminal appeal before the Honble High Court and also have filed criminal application under section 389 Cr.
SOS Application No.
The learned companynsel for the accused appellants companytended before the High Court that in the personal defence, the accused fired the gun shot on the companyplainant and the companyplainant also received injuries.
