However, in an appeal arising therefrom, this Court companyvicted some of the accused for offences with which they were tried.
As a result, father of the informant named Bhanwarlal and brother of the informant named Pankaj died on the spot while the informant suffered injuries.
Therefore, statements of witnesses were kept reserved.
PW3 Surendra Singh 13.2.2015 PW4 Dharam Pal 13.2.2015 PW 12 Vikrant Sharma 13.8.2015 PW 13 Prahlad 3.9.2015 PW 14 Ram Kumar 9.10.2015 PW 15 Sushila 9.10.2015, 5.11.2015 PW 17 Dr. Arun Tungariya 8.3.2016 PW 18 Ram Pratap 12.5.2016, 20.6.2016, 14.2.2017 PW 20 Sahab Singh 22.11.2016 PW 23 Ramesh Kumar 14.2.2017 The Trial Court by its judgment and order dated 03.11.2017 found that the prosecution had proved the case against the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and companyvicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 452, 447, 302 read with Section 149 and Section 323 read with CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.656 657 of 2019 SLP CRL Nos.809 810 of 2019 ATMA RAM ORS.
The evidence was thus led in the trial in Pune in his absence when he was number sent up for trial, at the end of which all the accused were acquitted.
The trial was companyducted in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Bhadara, District Hanumangarh.
The order dated 28.10.2014 passed by the Trial Court recorded the objection of the Advocate for the appellants.
After due investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellants namely Atmaram, Omprakash, Leeladhar and Shravan Kumar while others were reported to be absconding.
FIR No.493 was registered with Police Station Bhadara, District Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date 2019.04.11 163328 IST Hanumangarh on 13.10.2013 in respect of offences punishable under Sections Reason 302, 307, 452, 447, 323, 147, 148 and 149 IPC pursuant to reporting by one CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.656 657 of 2019 SLP CRL Nos.809 810 of 2019 ATMA RAM ORS.
Later, the informant Kailash also succumbed to his injuries.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN In Evidence PW1 Chanduram PW2 Chandrakala, Chief Examination was recorded.
The matter was, thereafter, heard by this Court.
The appellants also filed D.B. Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2018, which was heard along with the Death Reference case.
The examination in chief of PW1 Chanduram and PW2 Chandrakala was undertaken without the appellants being present in Court and the cross examination was deferred.
Advocate for accused sought time for Cross Examination.
It appears that at the stage of recording of evidence, the appellants who were then in judicial custody were number produced in companyrt.
There was numberinfirmity except the one that the evidence was number led in the presence of the appellants.
For recording evidence be present on 28.11.2014, till then Judicial Custody of Accused Atmaram, Om Prakash, Leeladhar and Shravan is extended.
Witnesses PW1 PW2 are to be present for Cross Examination on 28.11.2014 and Witness number 12, 13 and 143 are to be issued summons to remain present on 29.11.2014.
The order recorded CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.656 657 of 2019 SLP CRL Nos.809 810 of 2019 ATMA RAM ORS.
Later, he was produced before the Court in Pune with a supplementary charge sheet and charges were framed against him along with certain other accused.
The evidence in the form of testimony of those twelve witnesses was led and those witnesses were cross examined.
It was further alleged that the same assembly, thereafter, went to the village and assaulted inmates of the house in which his grandfather named Momanram died.
A request was made by the Public Prosecutor that the evidence of some of the witnesses, which was led in the earlier trial be read in evidence in the fresh trial against Jayendra Vishnu Thakur as those witnesses were either dead or number available to be examined23.
Uday Umesh Lalit, J. Leave granted.
These appeals challenge the decision dated 03.12.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Criminal Death Reference No.2 of 2017 and D.B. Criminal Appeal No.33 of 2018.
Similarly, following 10 witnesses were also examined in Court on dates mentioned against their names, without ensuring the presence of the appellants in Court.
In the meantime, Jayendra Vishnu Thakur was companyvicted by the Court in Delhi and was undergoing sentence imposed upon him.
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Kailash.
It was stated that seven named persons including present four appellants and some other unknown persons had companye to the agricultural field of the informant while harvesting operations were going on and had opened an assault.
