He was told about this occurrence by Sugla Dhankar who told him that above named persons had beaten his brothers.
Said Babu Ram, Raghuveer and Kailash were acquitted by the trial companyrt.
He was taking bath in Talviksha when the occurrence had taken place.
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows On 1.4.2000 at 4.30 p.m. First Information Report in short the FIR with regard to the incident came to be lodged on the same day at 7.30 p.m. by Bhonr Singh, brother of deceased Prabhu and Reghuveer.
Only the present appellant has questioned legality of the judgment of the High Court.
After companypletion of investigation charge sheet was filed.
23 persons were named in the First Information Report in short the FIR but after investigation police filed charge sheet against seven of them.
The appellants before High Court along with three others, namely, Babu Ram, Raghuveer and Kailash faced trial.
At the spot, the occurrence was witnesses by Ranveer, son of Dilip Singh, Hanuman, son of Gangaram, Girvar Singh, son of Mukhram Singh, Bhima, son of Mukhram, Harinarain Gujar and Ramniwas, sons of Phoola Gujar.
When they were going from Mandawara to Talvriksha, on the outskirts of the village, because of personal enmity, Girdhari son of Dola Ram Rebari, Hanuman, Lala and their younger brothers sons of Girdhari Rebari, Tulsa wife of Girdhari, Hardeva, Giluda, Gopal, Shimbhu sons of Hardeva, Santi wife of Hardeva and Hardeva himself, Ramjilal, Manaram, Pancha, Yada sons of Bhora Jat, Prabhu, Maharam sons of Shankar and relations of Girdhari Rebari whose names he did number know, Dholi wife of Sunda Ram, Sundaram and his four sons started beating Prabhu and Raghuveer with lathis, farsi, Jell etc.
Each of the appellants was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life each to pay fine about Rs.1,000/ with default stipulation.
Placing reliance on the evidence of PWs.
Bhonr Singh in the FIR lodged by him stated that between 4 to 5 in the evening on 1.4.2000, his brother Prabhu and Raghuveer were companying back from Thanagazhi after attending hearing of a case.
Accused persons pleaded innocence.
It was a written report on the basis of which formal FIR came into being.
3 4 the trial companyrt recorded companyviction of the appellant and others, while directing acquittal of Giluda.
He then straightway went to lodge the report.
and injured them.
A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court Jaipur Bench directed acquittal of the Giluda and upheld the companyviction so far as the appellants before it are companycerned.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Three appellants before the Rajasthan High Court alongwith one Giluda faced trial for alleged offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code in short the IPC .
