Rampal Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 25 August, 2025

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Rampal Singh And Another vs State Of U.P. on 25 August, 2025

1. Heard Sri Vishnu Murti Tripathi alongwith Ms. Shivani Kulshrestha, learned counsel for the appellants in Capital Case Nos. 6 of 2025 with Reference no. 5 of 2025; Sri Atul Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant in Capital Case No. 12 of 2025 and Sri L.D. Rajbhar along with Sri Murtaza Ali, learned AGA for the State.

2. Present Capital Cases and Reference arise from the judgement of conviction dated 11.03.2025 and order of sentence dated 18.03.2025, passed by Ms. Indira Singh, learned Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge (Dacoity Affected Area), Mainpuri, in S.T. No. 19 of 2024, (State Versus Santosha @ Santosh Singh, Rampal Singh, Ramsewak, Kaptan Singh, Kamrudeen, Shyamveer, Kunwarpal, Gyan Chandra @ Gyana, Rajey @ Rajendra, Yudhishthir, Pramod Rana, Malikhan, Ravindra Kumar, Radhey, Pancham and Yudhishthir S/o Munshi). The said trial arose from Case Crime No. 227 of 1981, under Section 147, 148, 149 read with Section 302, 149 read with 307, 396, 120B, 216A and 449/450 I.P.C, P.S. Jasrana, District Firozabad (erstwhile Mainpuri). During pendency of trial all but three accused persons died. Thus, conviction arose against Rampal Singh, Ramsewak and Kaptan Singh.

3. The appellants Ramsewak and Kaptan Singh have been convicted: (i) for offence under Section 148 I.P.C. and sentenced three years imprisonment; (ii) for offence under Section 302 read with 149 I.P.C. and awarded capital punishment-to be hanged till dead, together with fine Rs. 1,00,000/- each, and default sentence one year; (iii) for offence under Section 307/149 I.P.C. and sentenced for life, together with fine Rs.50,000/- each with default sentence six months. Further, (iv) for offence under Section 449/450 I.P.C., they have been sentenced for life, together with fine Rs.50,000/- each with default sentence six months.

4. The third appellant Rampal Singh has been convicted for offence under Section 302/120B I.P.C. and awarded capital punishment-to be hanged till dead, together with fine Rs. 1,00,000/- and default sentence one year.

5. During pendency of the trial, the following accused persons-Radhey, Kamrudeen, Shyamveer, Santosha @ Santosh Singh, Kunwar Pal, Pancham, Ravindra Kumar, Raje @ Rajendra, Yudhishthir s/o Munshi, Pramod Rana, Malikhan and Yudhishthir died. The accused Lakshmi and Gyan Chandra @ Gyanne have absconded. Their trial proceedings may have been separated. Trial proceedings of accused Bhurey was also separated. They are not before us.

6. For reasons that are difficult to note, yet based on undeniable facts, the trial proceedings lingered for decades, not years. In the first place, by operation of law, the trial could be conducted only before a "Special Court" constituted under the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983. The occurrence is of district Mainpuri. Hence, the trial rightly commenced before the Special Court constituted at Mainpuri. For expedience that may have then existed, that Court was constituted at Allahabad-to try these proceedings, upon transfer to Allahabad. However, despite some time extension notifications, the trial could not conclude at that transferred "Special Court", within that time. Thereafter, the trial remained pending, for reason of lack of appropriate notification to extend the jurisdiction of that "Special Court", at Allahabad.

7. Much later, by an order passed by the Court (on the judicial side), on 08.08.2024-in Transfer Application (Criminal) No.407 of 2024, the trial court proceedings were transferred back to the "Special Court" at Mainpuri, where jurisdiction continued to exist. Thereafter, the trial came to be concluded.

8. In such facts, we have prioritised the hearing of these cases while trying to balance hearing of other prioritized hearings (some under judicial orders of another Court), to at least symbolically indicate our intent to deliver justice, without delay.

9. The prosecution story emerged on the oral Report submitted by Layak Singh (P.W.-1) at Police Station, Jasrana, then District Mainpuri on 19.11.1981, at about 8:20 a.m.. On that oral Report, the FIR was registered. It was narrated-the first informant Layak Singh (P.W.-1) son of Bhojraj Singh, is a member of the 'Jatav' community and resident of village Dehuli, Jasrana, District Mainpuri. One day earlier, at about 4.00-5.00 p.m., Radhey (since dead), Kaptan Singh (Appellant no. 2 in Capital Cases No. 6 of 2025), Lakshmi (since absconding), Ramsewak (sole appellant in Capital Cases No. 12 of 2025), Kamrudeen (since dead), Shyamveer (since dead), Santosh Singh (since dead), Kunwar Pal (since dead) and 12-13 other miscreants-all armed with guns and rifles, entered his village from the South-East direction and reached the 'Jatav' locality in his village 'abadi'. They fired indiscriminately at the residents, including after entering their houses. The occurrence continued for about 2-2½ hour, wherein loot was also committed by the miscreants.

10. The occurrence was witnessed by Ved Ram (P.W.-2), Banwari (PW-9), Rai Singh, Sonpal, Panchhi Lal, Mitthu (not examined at the trial), and others. He further stated, though he could not name 12-13 miscreants involved in that occurrence, he would identify them if they came in his presence.

11. Next, he narrated, twenty four people died in the occurrence namely, (i) Jwala @ Jwaley son of Mohan, (ii) Ramsewak son of Laturi, (iii) Sheela daughter of Fauran Singh, (iv) Gajadhar son of Bihari, (v) Dhandevi wife of Rameshwar, (vi) Mukesh son of Rajeshwar, (vii) Munesh son of Jwali, (viii) Ganga Singh son of Sonpal, (ix) Ram Prasad son of Laturi, (x) Singarwati wife of Ram Prasad, (xi) Shivlal, (xii) Rajendri daughter of Laturi, (xiii) Shanti Devi, (xiv) Rajesh son of Kunwar Prasad, (xv) Asha Devi wife of Mahendra, (xvi) Dataram son of Ved Ram, (xvii) Bharat Singh son of Ved Ram, (xviii) Dulari wife of Laturi, (xix) Lalaram, (xx) Munesh, (xxi) Bhurey

12. son of Jwala @ Jwaley, (xxii) Manik Chand son of Sawle, (xxiii) Leeladhar and (xxiv) Geetam Singh son of Rai Singh.

13. Also, Harnarayan (P.W.-3), Sarvati, Baby, Guddi, Phoolwati and Gangashri (none examined at the trial), were injured in that occurrence caused by the miscreants at the instigation and planning by Pancham Singh (since deceased), Rampal Singh (Appellant no. 1 in Capital Cases No. 6 of 2025), Ravindra Singh and Yudhisthir Singh (since deceased). Those accused fed meal to the miscreants, after the occurrence.

14. As to motive or the genesis of the occurrence, about one and quarter year before the occurrence, two miscreants Radhey and Santosh Singh (both, since deceased), whoever-two of the original 17 accused put up for trial in this case, were involved in a Police encounter situation. Firearms and ammunition were recovered in that occurrence. However, Radhey and Santosh Singh (the miscreants) fled. In that occurrence Angan Lal, Pitthu Lal, Maharaj and Wala Sahai, all members of the 'Jatav' community became police witnesses. Motivated by that and to take revenge on the 'Jatav'/community, the miscreants carried out the massacre/mass murder, as narrated in the FIR. It is Ex.Ka-1 at the trial.

15. We find, the learned trial Court has prepared a brief tabular chart giving details of the witnesses as also the documents proven at the trial. We find it convenient to merge and translate the same and mention those details as below, with partial modification:

Sl No. Witness Name Fact/Formal Prosecution witness

1.

First Informant Layak Singh Fact witness P.W.-1

2. Vedram Fact witness P.W.-2

3. Harnarayan Fact witness P.W.-3

4. Kumar Prasad Fact witness P.W.-4

5. Dr. S.C. Gulecha Formal witness P.W.-5

6. Dr. Surendra Singh (Incharge C.M.O.) Formal witness P.W.-6

7. Dr. A.K. Srivastava Formal witness P.W.-7

8. Dr. Samya Vardhan Formal witness P.W.-8

9. Shri Banwari Lal Fact witness P.W.-9

16. Arising from that occurrence, 14 samples of blood stained and plain earth were recovered, on 19.11.1981. Blood stained clothes were also recovered. Details of the injured and injuries were also examined. Each dead body was subjected to autopsy examination. Those reports are also on record. Some of them were specifically proven and marked as Exhibits at the trial. However, it may be noted here itself, there is no challenge to any of the Injury Reports or the Autopsy Reports.

17. Also, report of chemical examination/forensic science laboratory, exists. Upon completion of investigation, the charge sheet was submitted, in the year 1984.

18. Upon the trial being committed to the "Special Court" under the U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Act, 1983, following charges were framed against the appellants:

CHARGE "I, Ramji Lal, Special Judge, Mainpuri, hereby charge you 1. Santosh, 2. Radhey, 3. Ramsewak, 4. Kaptan Singh, 5. Kamruddin, 6. Shyamvir Singh, 7. Kunwar Pal, 8. Gyan Chandra @ Ginna, 9. Rajey @ Rajendra, 10. Yudhishthar son of Durg Pal, 11. Pramod Rana, 12. Malikhan Singh and 13. Bhura as follows:-

FIRSTLY: That you along with 7 or 8 others on 18.11.1981 at about 4 or 5 P.M., in Mohalla of Jatavan situated in village Dehuli, Police Station Jasrana, Dist Mainpuri, were members of an unlawful assembly and did, in prosecution of the common object of that assembly, namely to loot and murder Jwala Prasad and 23 others, commit the offence of rioting with deadly weapons to wit fire arms Rifles, Guns and country made Pistal, are thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the court of Sessions.

SECONDLY: That you along with 7 or 8 other on the aforesaid date, time and place did an act to ...murderous assault in prosecution of your common... firing with your arms with such intention or ... under such circumstances that if by that act the death of 1. Ashik Ali, 2. Harnarayan , 3...., 4. Km. Guddi, 5. Smt. Sarwati, 6. Smt. Ganga, 7. Smt. Phoolmati you would have been guilty of murder and that you thereby caused hurt to the said 1. Ashik Ali 2. Har Narain 3. Km. Munnui, 4. Km. Guddi 5. Smt. Sharwati 6. Smt. Gangashri and 7. Smt. Phoolmati and thereby committed an offence punishable un er section 307 read with section 149 of Indian renal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.

THIRDLY: That you alongwith 7 or 8 others on the aforesaid date, time and place in prosecution of your common object committed murders by intentionally or knowingly causing the deaths of 1. Jwala Prasad, 2. Ram Prasad, 3. Smt. Ram Dulari, 4. Smt. Shrangarwati, 5. Smt. Shanti, 6. Km. Rajendri, 7. Rajesh, 8. Ramsewak, 9. Shiv Dayal, 10. Munesh, 11. Bharat Singh, 12. Data Ram 13. Smt. Asha Devi, 14. Lala Ram, 15. Gitam, 16. Lila Dhar, 17. Manik Chandra, 18. Bhurey, 19. Km. Shila, 20. Mukesh, 21. Smt. Dhandevi, 22. Ganga Singh, 23. Gajadhar and 24. Munesh, that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.

FOURTHLY: That you alongwith 7 or 8 others on the aforesaid date, time and place committed dacoity in the houses of 1. Ved Ram, 2. Mithu Lal, 3. Bhup Ram, 4. Manik Chandra, 5. Laturi, 6. Ram Singh, 7. Chunni Lal, 8. Hori Lal, 9. Son Pal, 10, smt. Phool Mati, 11. Layak Singh, 12. Banwari, 13. Jagdish and 14. Smt. Rewati... in course of dacoity committed murders of 1. Jwala Prasad, 2.... 3. Smt. Ram Dulari, 4. Smt. Shrangarwati, 5. Smt. Shanti, 6....., 7. Rajesh, 8. Ramsewak, 9. Shiv Dayal, 10. Munesh, 11....., 12. Data Ram, 13. Smt. Asha Devi, 14. Lala Ram, 15...., 16...., 17. Manik Chandra, 18. Bhurey, 19. Smt. Shila, 20. Mukesh, 21. Smt. Dhandevi, 22. Ganga Singh, 23. Gajadhar and 24. Munish were and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 396 of Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.

FIFTHLY: That you along with 7 or 8 others, on the aforesaid date, time and place committed house tress-pass by entering in the buildings of 1. Ved Ram, 2. Mithu Lal, 3. Bhup Ram, 4. Manik Chandra, 5. Laturi, 6. Ram Singh, 7. Chunni Lal, 8. Hori Lal, 9. Son Pal, 10. Smt. Phool Devi, 11. Layak Singh, 12. Banwari, 13. Jagdish and 14. Rewati used as a human dwelling in order to the commission of an offence punishable with doer, to wit, to loot their property and to commit murders, and you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 449 read with Section 450 of Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions.

The name of deceased Munish added and charge corrected, Today. Charge read over and explained to the accused in Hindi, who plead not guilty and claim to tried.

That you alongwith 2 others on or before 18.11.81 harboured accused Santosh & others and supply arms and ammunition to them for the purpose of committing dacoity on 18.11.81 in Dehauli and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 216A I.P.C. read with Section V of the Schedule of Offences under U.P. Dacoity Affected Areas Ordinance, 1981 & 82 and within the cognizance this Court of Sessions."

19. Another charge was framed against Rampal Singh and Ravindra Singh, as below:

CHARGE "I, Ramji Lal, Special Judge, Mainpuri, hereby charge you; 1. Rampal Singh and 2. Ravindra Singh as follows:

FIRSTLY: That you alongwith 2 others on 18.11.81, at any time in the day before 4.00 P.M., at village Dehuli, Police Station Jasrana, District Mainpuri, agreed with 1. Santosh, 2. Radhey, 3. Ramsewak, 4. Kaptan Singh, 5. Kamruddin, 6. Shyamvir Singh, 7. Kunwar Pal, 8. Gyan Chandra @ Ginna, 9. Rajaey @ Rajendra, 10. Yudhishtar son of Durg Pal, 11. Pramod Rana,12. Malikhan Singh, 13. Bhurey to do an illegal act, to loot and to murder Jwala Prasad 2. Ram Prasad, 3. Smt. Ram Dulari, 4. Smt. Shrangarwati, 5. Smt. Shanti, 6. Kmi. Ranjendri, 7. Rajesh, 8. Ramsewak, 9. Shiv Dayal, 10. Munesh, 11. Bharat Singh, 12. Data Ram, 13. Smt. Asha Devi, 14. Lala Ram, 15. Gitam, 16. Liladhar, 17. Manik Chandra, 18. Bhurey, 19. Kmi. Shila, 20. Mukesh, 21. Smt. Dhandevi, 22. Ganga Singh, 23. Ganjadhar and 24. Munish, by illegal means and that you did some acts, looted the property of Ved Ram, Mithu, Bhup Ram, Manik Chandra, Laturi, Ram Singh, Chunni Lal, Hori Lal, Son Pal, Smt. Phool Devi, Layak Singh, Banwari, Jagdish and Smt. Rewati besides agreement in pursuance of the said agreement to commit the offence of dacoity and murder of Sri. Jwala Prasad and 23 others and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, and within the cognizance of this Court of Sessions.

SECONDLY: That you along with 2 others, ... knew that 1. Santosh, 2. Radhey, 3. Ramsewak, 4. Kaptan Singh, 5. ..., 6. Shyamvir Singh, 7. Kunwar Pal, 8. Gyan Chandra @ Gann, 9. Rajey @ Rajendra, 10. Yudhishthar son of Durg Pal, 11. Pramod Rana, 12. Malikhan Singh and 13. Bhura along with 7 or 8 ... were about to commit dacoity and murder on the day .. on 18.11.81, at about 4 or 5 P.M., in village Dehuli in the houses of 1. Ved Ram, 2. Mithu, 3. Bhup Ram, 4. Manik Chandra, 5. Laturi, 6. Ram Singh, 7. Chunni Lal, 8. Hori Lal, 9. Son Pal, 10. Munesh, 11. Layak Singh, 12. Banwari, 13. Jagdish and Smt. Rewati and murder of 1. Jwala Prasad, 2. Ram Prasad, 3. Smt. Ram Dulari, 4. Smt. Shrangarwati, 5. Smt. Shanti, 6. Km. Rajendri, 7. Rajesh, 8. Ramsewak, 9. Shiv Dayal, 10. Munesh, 11. Bharat Singh, 12. Data Ram, 13. Smt. Asha Devi, 14. Lala Ram, 15. Gitam, 16. Liladhar, 17. Manik Chandra, 18. Bhurey, 19. Km. Shila, 20. Mukesh, 21. Smt. Dhandevi, 22. Ganga Singh, 23. Gajadhar and 24. Munesh, all residents of village Dehuli, Police Station Jasrana, District Mainpuri harboured them with the intention of facilitating the commission of dacoity and murder by the said 1. Santosh, 2. Radhey, 3. Ramsewak, Kaptan Singh, 4. Kamruddin, 5. Shyamvir Singh, 6. Kunwar Pal, 7. Gyan Chandra @ Ginna, 8. Rajey @ Rajendra, 9. Yudhishthar son of Durg Pal, 10. Pramod Rana, 11. Malikhan Singh and 12. Bhura and 7 or 8 their companions and you actually ficilitated them after the commission of the above said dacoity and murders committed, screened in your houses and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 216A of the Indian Penal Code and within the cognizance of the Court of Sessions."

20. Further charges were framed against Pancham Singh and Yudhishthir Singh as below:

CHARGE "I, G.S. Chaubey, Special Judge, Mainpuri hereby charge you; 1. Pancham Singh and 2. Yudhishthir Singh s/o Munshi Singh:-

That you alongwith 2 others on 18.11.1981 at any time in the day before 4 PM at village Dehuli, police station Jasrana, district Mainpuri, agreed witn 1. Santosh, 2. Radhey, 3. Ramsewak, 4. Kaptan Singh, 5. Kamruddin, 6. Shyamvir Singh, 7. Kunwar Pal, 8.Gyan Chandra alias Ginna, 9. Rajaey alias Rajendra, 10. Yudhishtar son of Durg Pal, 11. Pramod Rana, 12. Malikhan Singh, 13. Bhura to do an illegal act, to loot and to murder 1. Jwala Prasad, 2. Ram Prasad, 3. Smt. Ram Dulari, 4. Smt. Shrangarwati, 5. Smt. Shanti, 6. Km. Rajendri, 7. Rajesh, 8. Ramsewak, 9. Shiv Dayal, 10. Menesh, 11. Bharat Singh, 12. Data Ram, 13. Smt. Asha Devi, 14. Lala Ram, 15. Gitam, 16. Liladhar, 17. Manik Chandra, 18. Bhurey, 19. Km. Shila, 20. Mukesh, 21. Smt. Dhandevi, 22. Ganga Singh, 23. Gajadhar and 24. Munish by illegal means and that you did some acts looted the property of Vedram, Mithu, Bhup Ram, Manik Chandra, Laturi, Ram Singh, Chunni Lal, Hori lal, Son Pal, Smt. Phool Devi, Layak Singh, Banwari, Jagdish and Smt. Rewati besides the agreement in pursuance of the said agreement to commit the offence of dacoity and murder of Sri Jwala Prasad and 23 others and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 120B of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance.

Secondly, that you alongwith two others, on 18.11.1981 knew that 1. Santosh, 2. Radhey, 3. Ramsewak, 4. Kaptan Singh, 5. Kamruddin, 6. Shyamvir Singh, 7. Kunwar Pal, 8. Gyan Chandra alias Ginna, 9. Rajey alias Rajendra, 10. Yudhishthar son of Durg Pal, 11. Pramod Rana, 12. Malikhan Singh and 13. Bhura alongwith 7 or 8 others were about to commit dacoity and murder on the same day i.e. on 18.11.1981 at about 4 or 5 PM in village Dehuli in the houses of 1. Vedram, 2. Mithu, 3. Bhup Ram, 4. Manik Chandra, 5. Laturi, 6. Ram Singh, 7. Chunni Lal, 8. Hori Lal, 9. Son Pal, 10. Smt. Phool Devi, 11. Layak Singh, 12. Banwari, 13. Jagdish and Smt. Rewati and murder of 1. Jwala Prased, 2. Ram Prasad, 3. Smt. Ram Dulari, 4. Smt Shrangarwati, 5. Smt. Shanti, 6. Km. Rajendri, 7. Rajesh, 8. Ran Sewak, 9. Shiv Dayal, 10. Munesh, 11. Bharat Singh, 12. Data Ram, 13. Smt. Asha Devi, 14. Lala Ram, 15. Gitam, 16. Liladhar, 17. Manik Chandra, 18. Bhurey, 19. Km. Shila, 20. Mukesh, 21. Smt. Dhandevi, 22. Ganga Singh, 23. Gajadhar and 24 Munish all residents of village Dehuli, police station Jasrana, district Mainpuri harboured them with the intention of facilitating the commission of dacoity and murder by the said 1. Santosh, 2. Radhey, 3. Ramsewak, 4. Kaptan Singh, 5. Kamruddin, 6. Shyamvir Singh, 7. Kunwar Pal, 8. Gyan Chandra alias Ginna, 9. Rajey alias Rajendra, 10. Yudhishthar son of Durg Pal, 11. Pramod Rana, 12. Malikhan Singh, 13. Bhura and 7-8 their companions and you actually facilitated them also after the commission of the above said decoity and murders already committed, screened in your houses and that you thereby committed an offence punishable under section 216A of the Indian Penal Code and within my cognizance."

21. Also, Local Inspection was conducted by the learned court below, on 06.04.1987 and 16.05.1987.

22. At the trial, the prosecution led oral evidence through nine witnesses. In that, four were examined as witness of fact. First, the first informant Layak Singh was examined as P.W.-1. He is not an injured witness. He proved that the occurrence was caused at about 4.00-5.00 p.m. on 18.11.1981. At that time, he was returning from his agricultural field located to the South-West of his village. As he reached near a village well, he saw 20-21 miscreants-all armed with rifles, guns and country made firearms, were walking towards his village from the South-East direction. They included Radhey armed with a rifle, Santosha @ Santosh Singh armed with a double barrel gun and others armed with country made firearms. Of them, Radhey, Santosh, Kaptan, Kamrudeen, Ramsewak, Shyamveer, Kunwar Pal and Lakshmi were known to him from before.

23. He also saw another villager Jwala @ Jwaley tending to his potato crops. Jwala @ Jwaley was shot at by the accused persons 4-5 times. He fell on the boundary/'medh' of his agricultural field and died.

24. After causing that occurrence, the miscreants proceeded to the 'Jatav' locality, in his village. They first fired at Maharaj Singh but missed. The assailants, Radhey and Bhanvar Singh climbed on top of a dilapidated structure of 'Thakur' and started firing, indiscriminately. The victims ran for cover inside houses. The occurrence lasted about 2-2½ hour.

25. For his own safety, the said witness first hid in a pit near the village well (when Jwala @ Jwaley was shot). As the miscreants entered the 'Jatav' locality in his village, the witness ran and hid inside the house of Dropa Devi. He saw the entire occurrence, from there.

26. After the miscreants left, he found 23 dead bodies, while six persons, Harnarayan Singh, Ganga Singh, Phoolmati, Baby, Guddi and Sarwati were injured in that occurrence. He also named the 23, who died in the village 'abadi'. The dead body of: Ramsewak was lying inside the house of Genda Lal; Seela Devi was lying in the house of Sonkar; Gajadhar was lying on his thatched roof; of Dhan Devi was lying at the shop of Gajadhar; Mukesh (son of Rameshwar) and Mukesh (son of Jwala @ Jwaley Prasad) were lying on cots inside their house; Ganga Singh was lying on the thatched roof of Sonpal; Ram Prasad was lying inside his house; Singarwati was lying in her courtyard; Shiv Dayal was lying at the door step of Laturi Singh; Dulari was lying in the sitting room inside her house; Rajendri, Rajesh and Shanti Devi were lying at the public square; Asha Devi was lying in-front of her house; Data Ram was lying inside the house of Ved Ram; Lala Ram was lying inside the house of Ram Swaroop; Bhurey was lying in the house of Jwala @ Jwaley Prasad and Munesh Singh S/o Man Singh was lying in the courtyard of Jwala @ Jwaley Prasad.

27. After the occurrence, the miscreants went to the house of Yudhishthir Singh, Ravindra Singh, Pancham Singh (all since dead) and Rampal Singh (appellant in Capital Cases No.6 of 2025).

28. Thereafter, the witness proved, he went to make his report to the Police on 19.11.1981. He submitted an oral Report, that was read out to him before registration. He proved the same. Thus, the FIR was marked as Ex.Ka.1. Thereafter, the said witness also proved the occurrence was witnessed by Son Pal, Panchhi Lal, Ved Ram (P.W.-2), Ram Singh and others.

29. By way of the genesis of the occurrence, the said witness proved, about a year and a quarter prior to the occurrence, the accused Radhey and Santosh had faced a Police encounter, at village Dehuli. Two persons belonging to their gang were arrested, in that occurrence. Angan Lal, Wala Sahai, Mitthu Lal and Maharaj (all 'Jatavs') became Police witnesses. In that occurrence, two of their gang members were apprehended alongwith their firearms. Therefore, the miscreants bore animosity towards the members of 'Jatav' community, at village Dehuli. All persons killed in this occurrence were related to the witnesses, in that police encounter case.

30. Last, the witness identified Bhurey Singh in the dock. He further stated, he had first identified the said accused in jail after, he had seen him at his village, involved in the occurrence.

31. The prosecution next examined Ved Ram as P.W.-2. He too is not an injured witness. He proved, he was tending to his agricultural field located about 50-60 paces from village Dehuli. At about 4.30 p.m., he saw the miscreants (20-21 in numbers) enter his village from the South-East direction. He identified the accused Santosh, Radhey, Kaptan, Lakshmi, Kamrudeen, Ramsewak, Kunwar Pal and Shyamveer i.e. eight out of 20-21 miscreants described by him. In Court, he wrongly identified Bhurey as Kunwar Pal. As to the weapon assignment, Radhey was armed with rifle and Santosh with a double barrel gun. Remaining accused were armed with guns and country made firearms.

32. Next, he proved, the accused Santosh, Radhey, Kaptan, Lakshmi (since absconding), Kamrudeen and Ramsewak belonged to his village Dehuli. They first shot at Jwala @ Jwaley, who was tending to his potato field. However, he could not tell which of the miscreants shot Jwala @ Jwaley. He suffered firearm injuries and fell at the boundary/'medh' of his agricultural field.

33. After causing that occurrence, the miscreants walked to the 'Jatav' locality in the village. They entered the lanes and started killing, indiscriminately. Some victims were killed inside their houses, while others were killed on the village lanes. Radhey climbed to the top of a dilapidated structure and hurled abuses. The occurrence lasted 2-2½ hour. In that, 24 lives were lost. Loot was also committed. The witness lost his sons-Bharat Singh and Data Ram, in the occurrence. Then, he named those killed in that occurrence as, Gajadhar, Dhan Devi, Seela Devi, Mukesh, Shiv Dayal, Ganga Singh, Singarwati, Ram Dulare, Rajendri, Ramsewak, Rajesh, Asha Devi, Lala Ram, Bhurey, Munesh, Munesh Kumhar, Manik Chand, Lila Dhar, Geetam Singh as also Ram Prasad. He identified the injured as Kula Devi, Neelam, Guddi, Harnarayan, Gangashri, Sarwati and another Guddi, daughter of Ram Prasad.

34. After causing the occurrence, the accused went to the house of Pancham Singh, Yudhishthir Singh (since deceased), Rampal Singh (appellant in Capital Case No.6 of 2025), and had meal. He saw that occurrence from the river side up to around 1.30 a.m. He further narrated, the occurrence was witnessed by Banwari Lal (P.W.-9), Layak Singh (P.W.-1), Panchhi Lal, Sonpal, Ram Singh, Mitthu Lal, Maharaj and others. He further stated, he remained terrified throughout the night and did not enter his locality. Rather, he kept moving throughout the night.

35. By way of genesis of the occurrence, the said witness also stated, about a year and a quarter prior to the occurrence, the gang of Radhey and Santosh were involved in a Police encounter, wherein two members of their gang were arrested. In that, his nephew Angan Lal and other members of his family became Police witnesses. For that reason, the accused persons developed deep animosity towards the entire 'Jatav' community. They also threatened to kill the witnesses, if they led any evidence against them.

36. Thereafter, Harnarayan was examined as P.W.-3. He is an injured witness. He testified, the incident occurred around 4:00-4:30 p.m. on 18.11.1981. At that time, he was present at his uncle Ved Ram's (P.W.-2) house, along with his two cousins, Bharat Singh and Data Ram, the wife of Ved Ram (P.W.-2) and his younger brother, Amrit Lal. When the firing began, his aunt (wife of Ved Ram) told them to hide as miscreants had arrived. Three miscreants, namely, Santosh, Radhey and Lakshmi, broke down the door of the house where the witness was hiding-inside a room closed from the outside.

37. He proved, Radhey was armed with a rifle, Santosh with a double-barrel gun and Lakshmi with a country-made firearm. Radhey fired first, hitting the witness on his leg while the second bullet fired by him went through the abdomen of Bharat Singh. Then, Santosh fired a bullet that hit Data Ram in his abdomen. He had already suffered bullet injury, earlier. Santosh fired the second time, causing pellet injuries to the witness in his abdominal region and scrotum. It left him unconscious. As to the incident, he confirmed, Data Ram and Amrit Lal were standing in a line, in front of the door, when they were first attacked.

38. The witness claimed, he regained consciousness at 3:00 a.m. and saw his father, Ved Ram (P.W.-2), who told him, Bharat Singh and Data Ram had died. He had carried the witness to his house. Amrit Lal escaped unhurt. He proved, he was medically examined at Shikohabad Hospital, after the police arrived.

39. Thereafter, Kumar Prasad was examined as P.W.-4. He ran a grocery store at his village. He proved, he was present at the village during the incident that took place between 4:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. According to him, the firing began near the house of Genda Lal. Upon hearing the second shot, he came out of his shop and stood on the platform, in the front. As he turned towards the house of the Swarnpal, he saw Radheshyam with a rifle and Inder with a 12 bore gun, heading towards the house of Bhanwar Singh.

40. At that point, the witness went towards the house of Suraj, where he saw three accused: Raju, Bhurey and Shyamveer, all armed with guns. He ran towards the house of Ram Swaroop. There, he saw Santosh, Kamrudeen, Kunwar Pal, and also Aziz. Santosh was armed with a double-barrel gun, and others with single-barrel guns. He also saw Kaptan Singh and Yudhishthir, among the accused.

41. The witness ran towards his house, shut the door, and climbed to his terrace. At that time, the accused Inder spotted him. Radhey Shyam fired at the witness but missed. He ran down and hid his sister-in-law Shanti, his wife Sarbati, his son Rajesh, Mona, Rekha, Neetu and Santosh, and an infant born to his sister (whose name he could not recall), in one room. He hid inside a hay stack, while his mother Ram Dulari hid in another room, while his brother, Ram Dayal hid in yet another room, of the same house.

42. The miscreants first broke down the door of his mother's room. He saw from his place of hiding-the accused, Radhey, Santosha, Kamrudeen, Kaptan, Kunwar Pal, Shyamveer and Yudhishthir, killed his mother and dug out jewellery concealed in the floor of that room. After that, the miscreants cut through the door of the other room (where the witness was hiding in a hay stack), with an axe. Santosh fired a double-barrel gun at his wife, Sarbati. She was injured and left unconscious. They killed his son Rajesh, while his injured wife fell unconscious.

43. The miscreants asked his sister-in-law about his whereabouts. She told them he had run away from the house. At that point, Radhey shot at and killed her. Thereafter, they brought his sister Rajendri to the courtyard and shot her in the abdomen, resulting in her death.

44. Shyamveer, Kunwar Pal and Kamrudeen killed his brother, Ram Prasad and his other sister-in-law Singarwati, who were locked inside another room. The miscreants first broke through the door of that room and killed them and their six-month-old daughter, Guddi. His brother-in-law ('Jija') Lala Ram, was dragged to and killed by the miscreants at the house of Ram Swaroop. In all, eight members of his family were killed in that occurrence.

45. After the miscreants left, the witness came out of hiding and found the dead bodies lying. His wife was still alive. He stayed there till 10.00-10.30 a.m. the next day, till the police arrived. The police took his injured wife and his other niece Guddi, for medical attention. The witness could not recall what happened in the village after that.

46. He maintained, the attack lasted one hour, in which 24 people were killed and seven were injured, including Guddi, Sarbati Devi, Harnarayan and Ganga and Phoolmati. The assailants included Radhey Shyam, Kamrudeen, Kaptan, Ramsewak, Shyamveer, Pancham Singh, Ravindra Rampal Singh and Bhurey, who he identified, in Court. Last, he confirmed, Pancham Singh, Rampal Singh and Ravindra had fed the miscreants at their house, after the firing.

47. The fourth fact witnesses, Banwari Lal was examined as P.W.-9. He also confirmed, the incident occurred around 4.00-4.15 p.m. At that time, he was working on his agricultural field, tending to his potato crops. He saw 10-12 people walk towards his village. Santosh shot at his father, Jwala @ Jwaley Prasad. Then, all the miscreants entered his locality in the village 'abadi' and indiscriminately killed children (as young as six months old), women, men and elderly people. In all, 24 people were killed. He identified Santosha, Radhey, Kamrudeen, Ramsewak, Kaptan, and Ram Pal, among others. He had not seen Kaptan. Radhey was armed with a rifle, Santosha with a double-barrel gun, and the others with country-made firearms.

48. He proved, the boundary/'medh' of his agricultural field was high. He hid behind it.

49. As to the genesis of the incident, the witness confirmed, about a year and a quarter earlier, two miscreants had been arrested in a police encounter, wherein members of his locality became police witnesses. For that reason, the miscreants (members of the 'Thakur' community), bore deep animosity towards the members of his 'Jatav' community.

50. Last, he confirmed, he saw the incident caused by those miscreants.

51. Besides the above ocular evidence led through five witnesses including one injured, the prosecution also examined Dr. S.C. Gulecha (P.W.-5), Dr. Surendra Singh (P.W.-6), Dr. AK Srivastava (P.W.-7) and Dr. Samya Vardhan (P.W.-8). First, Autopsy Reports were proved as below:

Sl. No. Name of the deceased Exhibits Date of report Proved by

1.

Ganga Singh On record 20.11.81

2. Shanti Devi On record 20.11.81

3. Dhan Devi On record 20.11.81

4. Ram Prasad On record 20.11.81

5. Geetam On record 20.11.81

6. Asha Devi On record 20.11.81

7. Leeladhar On record 20.11.81

8. Bhurey On record 20.11.81

9. Rajesh On record 20.11.81

10. Singarwati On record 20.11.81

11. Munesh S/o Jwala On record 20.11.81

12. Shiv Dayal Ka-3 20.11.81 Dr. S.C. Gulecha

13. Dataram On record 20.11.81

14. Mukesh Ka-2 20.11.81 Dr. S.C. Gulecha

15. Gajadhar Singh On record 20.11.81

16. Km. Sheela Ka-6 20.11.81 Dr. A.K. Srivastava

17. Munesh On record 20.11.81

18. Rajendri On record 20.11.81

19. Lalaram On record 20.11.81

20. Manik Chand Ka-7 21.11.81 Dr. A.K. Srivastava

21. Ramsewak On record 21.11.81

22. Dulari Ka-8 21.11.81 Dr. A.K. Srivastava

23. Jawala Ka-4 21.11.81 Dr. Surendra Singh

24. Bharat Singh Ka-5 21.11.81 Dr. Surendra Singh

52. Thereafter, Dr. Samaya Vardhan was examined as P.W.-8. He proved the following injury reports:

Sl. No. Injured Exhibits

1.

Harnarayan (P.W.-3) Ex.Ka.9

2. Guddi (Not examined) Ex.Ka.10

3. Phoolmati (Not examined) Ex.Ka.11

4. Sarbati Devi (Not examined) Ex.Ka.12

5. Baby (Not examined) Ex.Ka.13

53. Thereafter, Sub-Inspector Sugar Singh (C.W.-1), proved the accused Malikhan died during trial. Constable Nitin Kumar (C.W.-2) proved, the accused Radhey Singh and Shyamveer died during trial. Constable Indrajeet (C.W.-3) who proved, the accused Kunwar Pal died during trial was also examined as (C.W.-4) to prove, the accused Gyan Chandra absconded. Next, Inspector Ramesh Singh Yadav (C.W.-5) proved, another accused Pramod Rana died during trial. Sub-Inspector Somil Rathi (C.W.-6) proved, the accused Ravindra Kumar Singh died during the trial. Sub-Inspector Jagdeesh Singh (C.W.-7) proved, the accused Santosh Singh @ Santosha died during trial. Last, Sub-Inspector Vishwendra Singh (C.W.-8) proved, the accused Yudhishthir son of Munshi and Pancham also died during trial. Also, vide order dated 12.09.2018 the trial against Kamrudeen, Yudhishthir s/o Durgpal Thakur had abated.

54. Thereafter, the statements of the surviving accused persons were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

55. In that state of evidence, the trial concluded with the conviction of the present appellants and sentencing as noted above.

56. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is-the FIR was lodged belatedly, based on a well thought out story prepared by the prosecution. The alleged occurrence took place between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m. on 18.11.1981, but the FIR was lodged the next day at 8:20 a.m. The real incident was carried out by some other bandits/dacoits, who had motive against Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4) of looted property not accounted for, by him. As a result, eight members of his family were killed. For that reason, jewellery was dug out from his house, by those dacoits.

57. Due to fear of the real perpetrators of the crime, it was found convenient to place the blame on the present appellants, who had nothing to do with the occurrence. Although the prosecution claimed animosity upon Angan Lal, Mitthu Lal, Wala Sahai and Maharaj becoming police witnesses-in the arrest of the associates of the accused Radhey and Santosh, neither those witnesses nor their family members were harmed, in any way. Further, no recoveries of any looted items were made from the present appellants. Thus, there is no corroboration to the prosecution story.

58. Further, Layak Singh (P.W.-1) presented a wholly imagined narration of the incident. Although, he claimed to be near Jwala @ Jwaley, no attempt was made to harm him. He was allegedly left alive solely to serve as a prosecution witness. It casts a doubt. This unreliability is further supported by his implausible claim that he hid in a pit about 1.5 feet deep. Reference was made to the Local Inspection Report by the learned court below.

59. Further, Layak Singh (P.W.-1) is not a reliable witness as he claimed to have run to the house of Dropa Devi and witnessed the entire occurrence from there, without sustaining any injury himself. It has been stated, the witness had no real opportunity to observe the entire incident, allegedly involving a group of miscreants, who attacked multiple victims at multiple locations. Further, it is highly improbable, he would have emerged unscathed in such a massacre, especially when he had necessarily exposed himself to the full view of the assailants. The entire account narrated by this witness is described as an imagined-to suit the prosecution convenience.

60. The improbability and falsity of his narration are further demonstrated by the fact, he gave inconsistent accounts of how he witnessed the appellants had meal at the residence of co-accused Rampal. There was no source of light available that would have enabled him to identify anyone sitting inside the house of the Rampal, while he was at the riverside. His statement is self-contradictory, as he tried to maintain both- that he came out of hiding during the night and, at the same time, he remained in hiding, till the police arrived.

61. The evidence of Ved Ram (P.W.-2) has been doubted on similar reasoning. His presence was not established either by Layak Singh (P.W.-1) or Banwari Lal (P.W.-9).

62. As to the evidence of the injured witness-Harnarayan (P.W.-3), a wholly unbelievable account has been offered by him. Although, he claimed to have been lined up and shot at alongwith others, he did not sustain any serious injury that could reasonably be expected in that circumstance. His further statement that he lost consciousness, is also wholly unbelievable, considering the nature of the simple injuries suffered by him. It has been submitted, those injuries were neither serious nor such as may have rendered him unconscious. Therefore, his testimony is also unreliable.

63. With regard to Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4), it has been submitted, his narration is entirely imagined and self-contradicted. First, it is unbelievable, he could have escaped such assault. He was allegedly in plain sight of the assailants when he climbed to the terrace of his house. Second, once he claimed he had locked himself inside a room and hidden in a haystack, his further assertion that, at the same time, he witnessed the occurrence outside that locked room, is unreliable. He also claimed, the miscreants broke open the door of the locked room to gain access to the deceased. It is clear, the witness could not have witnessed any occurrence outside his room, before the door to that room was broke open. Therefore, his account is also unreliable, especially with regard to his claim of having seen the accused, Santosh, Radhey and Lakshmi, armed with guns and shooting the deceased, with specific weapons.

64. In this context, it has been stressed, Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4) had animosity with the real perpetrator of the occurrence, namely, Chabi Ram Yadav, who led a group of dacoits. The said witness allegedly fell out with Chabi Ram Yadav due to his own failure to account for the loot, kept in his custody. To hide that truth and to take revenge against the present appellants, he fabricated a wholly false narrative.

65. Insofar as Banwari Lal (P.W.-9) is concerned, it has been submitted, he was not present in the 'abadi' at the time of the occurrence and did not witness the occurrence. As to his testimony, he saw the accused Santosh shoot Jwala @ Jwaley Prasad (his father), it has been submitted, Banwari Lal is a false or planted witness. His presence at the place of occurrence is not supported by any other evidence, since there is no mention of him in the FIR or in the deposition of Layak Singh (P.W.-1).

66. Complete lack of corroboration has been alleged by the defence, on several grounds. No recoveries were made; the site plan was not proved; the Investigation Officer was not examined; the writer/scribe of the check FIR was not examined and the forensic report did not confirm involvement of any recovered firearm in the occurrence. It has also been submitted-out of 76 listed witnesses, only nine were examined. In a case of this nature, apart from the four fact witnesses who were examined (all closely related to the deceased), no other villager, who may not have suffered any personal loss and who could be an independent witness, was examined.

67. Referring to the procedure, it has further been submitted, the trial was not fair, particularly as the defence was not given opportunity to lead evidence. Since the delay in the trial was not due to any conduct attributable to the defence, no adverse inference could be drawn against the appellants.

68. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. would submit, the present case involves caste violence, resulting in a massacre of 24 persons, all belonging to the socially non-dominant 'Jatav' community. The occurrence took place (mainly) in the 'abadi' area of the village. Yet, in that indiscriminate attack involving use of deadly weapons, except for one person, no member of any other caste or community was targeted, killed or injured. Only one non-'Jatav', was injured.

69. Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4) lost eight family members, Banwari Lal (P.W.-9) lost four, while Ved Ram (P.W.-2) lost two. Thus, the witnesses who lost 14 family members out of the 24 killed, were examined besides an injured witness Harnarayan (P.W.-3). The incident occurred during day time. Once these facts are established, it cannot be said, the FIR was delayed. The victims and their families were understandably petrified and terrorized by the scale of violence. Witnesses testified, they hid through the night, either within their homes or near river side, to escape the massacre. Given that the incident occurred in 1981, when neither easy communication nor transportation was available, it was only after daybreak or after more than 12 hours, the survivors could muster courage to travel about 10 kilometres to the Police Station, to lodge the FIR.

70. For those reasons, it cannot be said, the F.I.R. was lodged as an afterthought. It would have taken considerable courage for the first informant, Layak Singh (P.W.-1), to go to the Police Station and lodge the F.I.R. against several members of the socially dominant 'Thakur' community. Keeping these circumstances in mind, no adverse inference may be drawn on account of time taken to lodge the F.I.R.

71. On ocular evidence, it has been submitted, as a rule, it is not the number of witnesses but the quality and credibility of their testimony that matters. In the present case, the first informant, Layak Singh (P.W.-1), lodged the F.I.R. at the earliest possible opportunity. In that, he provided a detailed narration of the occurrence; he named the accused persons known to him; he described the exact nature of the weapons used and also mentioned 12-13 unidentified assailants; he assigned specific weapons to each of the accused and, proved that the occurrence took place over an extended period of time. He also detailed the direction from which the assailants entered the 'abadi' of the village to carry out the attack. Last, he proved, the accused persons gathered at the house of Rampal, to eat a meal, late that night.

72. Layak Singh (P.W.-1), a simple villager, lodged the F.I.R., in 1981. He was examined in Court about five years later, in 1986. He was subjected to extensive cross-examination over several dates spanning nearly three more years. Remarkably, he remained consistent to the basic version of events as disclosed by him in the F.I.R. He neither made any material improvement nor offered any effective contradiction to any of his previous statement. To that extent, his testimony at the trial is wholly corroborated with the contents of the F.I.R. The said witness was present at the place of occurrence when the miscreants entered his village and he witnessed the shooting of Jwale @ Jwaley while hiding in a pit. It may not be doubted speculatively. The argument that he would not have been spared if the intention of the assailants was to kill all members of the 'Jatav' community does not, by itself, discredit his presence or his testimony, as matters of probability cannot override otherwise wholly reliable evidence.

73. As to the witness Ved Ram (P.W.-9), it has been submitted, he too remained truthful. Therefore, his evidence is reliable to the extent, he did not attempt to depose beyond what he actually witnessed. Apart from a single error in identifying Bhurey as Kunwar Pal, he neither added to nor contradicted the deposition made by Layak Singh (P.W.-1).

74. Insofar as Harnarayan (P.W.-3) is concerned, it cannot be disbelieved that he lost consciousness. Considering the nature of the injury he suffered and his tender age, there is no reason to doubt his presence at the time and place of the incident, specifically at the house of his uncle ('tau'), Ved Ram (P.W.-2). He was a young boy, about 13 years old at the time of the occurrence and did sustain firearm injuries. In the context of such traumatic and violent occurrence, his presence may not be doubted merely because his injury was not grievous.

75. As to the testimony of Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4), it has been submitted, during his cross-examination, no questions were put to him to suggest that there did existed any aperture or gap in the door or the walls or window, etc., of the room where he was hiding, as may have allowed him to see the occurrence outside, before the door to his room was broke open. Merely because he truthfully stated- he hid himself in a haystack (to save his life), it cannot be inferred-he was not present at the time and place of the occurrence. His presence, may not be doubted as it remained undisputed to the defence that he ran a grocery shop from his house, at his village. He has proven, that the shop was open at the time of the occurrence and that he was present there.

76. Next, Banwari Lal (P.W.-9) may not have witnessed any part of the occurrence that took place inside the 'abadi' area of the village Dehuli. However, his presence in the agricultural field alongwith his father cannot be doubted, as he is an agriculturist. It is common for agriculturist families, that their entire families particularly young members work with their elders and thereby receive training in agriculture. To the extent, his testimony is consistent to that of P.W.-1, it may not be doubted or disbelieved.

77. As to the motive and the genesis of the occurrence, no doubt emerged during the cross-examination of any of the five fact witnesses examined by the prosecution. Their consistent testimony has established that about one year and a quarter prior to the occurrence, four members of the 'Jatav' community had become police witnesses in a Police encounter case involving Santosh Singh, Radhey and others. In that occurrence, firearms and ammunition were recovered. Therefore, motive arose with Radhey, Santosh and their ('Thakur') community, to persecute the 'Jatav' community for siding with the police against members of the socially dominant 'Thakur' community-particularly the associates of the main accused Radhey and Santosh. The attack was intended to spread fear in the 'Jatav' community to beat them into subjugation. Evidence was also led by the prosecution that the 'Jatav' community had received information regarding the impending attack.

78. Last, it has been submitted, insofar as the nature of the occurrence is concerned, the indiscriminate firing by the assailants is beyond doubt. Detailed narration of dead bodies found at various locations, including some inside the house of others, clearly corroborates the truthfulness of the ocular witnesses. The massacre lasted for a considerable duration. The victims fled to save their lives. Some were killed in their own house, while others were killed in the house of others. Some were killed on the ground, while others were killed on the terrace. Some were killed in open areas, including public lane etc., while others were forcibly drawn out from their places of hiding, and killed.

79. Any deficiency in the investigation cannot be relied to the benefit of the appellants. The site plan is not a substantive piece of evidence. Although it was not proved, it does not create a reasonable doubt in light of the otherwise detailed and consistent evidence led by the prosecution. It is also noted, the learned court below conducted the Local Inspection, not once but twice. It confirmed that the occurrence took place at the place as narrated by the prosecution. There is no doubt as to the cause of death of any victim or the injuries suffered by any of the injured.

80. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, we regret to note- the trial involving such a gruesome occurrence, has taken 45 years to conclude. Of the 18 accused, only 17 were put to trial, 12 of them died during the course of the trial, without justice being served. Two absconded and their trial separated. Trial proceeding of Bhurey was also separated. Whatever the reason for this delay was, we can only express our regret to the parties, for the delay suffered by them. Beyond that the Court is not in a position to undo the delay of time. At the same time, due to the delay in the conclusion of the trial and the capital punishment awarded to the present appellants, we have expedited the hearing of this appeal in a symbolic effort to make up for the lost time, even that could be done at the cost of older and expedited appeals.

81. As to the delay in lodging the FIR, we first note, the general principle applied in such cases is not applicable, here. In a normal occurrence, where a family suffers a loss of life, Courts expect- the FIR be lodged at the earliest i.e. within a few hours of the incident. However, where entire communities are victimized or persecuted and a massacre follows, the circumstances are completely different. That general behavioural response of the victim may remain inapplicable due to the diabolical intent of the accused and the manner of the assault.

82. As noted above, the occurrence took place in broad daylight, around 4.00 to 5.00 p.m., when a band of miscreants (almost all belonging to the socially dominant 'Thakur' community) entered the 'abadi' area of a socially non-dominant community ('Jatav') and carried out indiscriminate firing- on children, women, men, young or old. It appears, some of the victims were dragged out from their place of hiding and shot dead in cold blood. That is wholly consistent to the nature of the occurrence as described by the survivors, who were understandably utterly shocked and terrified.

83. Therefore, it is wholly believable, that the survivors either stayed shut at the place of their hiding to escape the assault or fled to the river side or other open areas where they could find some comfort if not safety from the assailants in their village 'abadi'. Those survivors who gathered at the river side would have come together in a state of utter shock. They would have taken time to find a way out of the nightmare that they had suffered.

84. The occurrence took place nearly five decades earlier, when villagers had neither access to any easy mode of communication or transport. It is apparent, the news of the occurrence did not reach the police or the civil authorities of its own. Therefore, it is entirely normal in that circumstance that the victims were able to travel and lodge the FIR after daybreak, the next morning. Considering that the FIR was lodged at 8:20 a.m. on 19.11.1981, we do not find any delay in lodging the FIR. The victims were disabled from lodging the FIR any earlier, by the sheer brutality of the massacre as also by the diabolic nature, manner of extent of that assault, besides the external circumstances of lack of efficient communication/transportation.

85. Second, the FIR was not lodged as an afterthought or upon advice. We first note, no such suggestion had been made during the cross-examination of Layak Singh (P.W.-1). Despite elaborate cross-examination of Layak Singh (P.W.-1), no doubt emerged on that point. The FIR was lodged based on his oral dictation. He narrated the entire occurrence, in clear terms. The narration was neither vague nor contradictory. The FIR itself explains, it could not have been lodged earlier as the sun had set and the first informant was terrified. For these reasons, the ground that the FIR was an afterthought is also rejected.

86. As to the nature of the occurrence, Layak Singh (P.W.-1), the first informant, proved, he was near the village-returning from his agricultural field. He explained, his field lay to the South-West of the village, while the miscreants were approaching the village from the South-East. Thus, the miscreants and the witness were walking towards a common point, approaching it from two different directions-following two straight lines, as may have formed a 'V' with the village 'abadi' at the vertex. Thus, the informant was not in the direct line of sight of the miscreants, who would have been looking in the direction of the village, towards which they were walking. The witness also did not state, the deceased Jwala @ Jwaley (the first person killed), was standing near him. Rather, he testified, he saw Jwala @ Jwaley tending to his potato field when the miscreants shot him dead. After witnessing this, the witness hid himself in a pit. Despite extensive cross-examination that extended over five years, no doubt emerged if Layak Singh was present in the plain sight of the miscreants as they walked towards the village. Therefore, we find no reason to doubt the presence of Layak Singh (P.W.-1) near the village while he was returning from his agricultural field and witnessed the miscreants shoot the deceased Jwala @ Jwaley, dead. Therefore, his presence at that time at the place disclosed by him is natural as he was returning home after his day's work on his agricultural field.

87. At the same time, it must be recognized, Layak Singh (P.W.-1) was witness to six material facts. First, he saw the unlawful assembly of Radhey, Kaptan Singh, Kamrudeen, Ramsewak, Shyam Veer, Kunwar Pal, Lakshmi and about 20-21 others enter his village Dehuli from the South-East side while he was returning from the South-west side. He knew the named accused from before. He further testified, Radhey was armed with a rifle, Santosh with a double barrel gun (DBBL) and the others with guns and country-made firearms. Second, he witnessed the murder of Jwala @ Jwaley, who was working in his potato field. However, he did not specify which member of the unlawful assembly committed that killing. Third, the witness established, the occurrence lasted about 2-2½ hour, during which time, 24 members of his/'Jatav' community, were killed. He did not witness the entire occurrence personally as he remained in hiding first in a pit and then inside the house of Dropa Devi and came out of hiding only after the occurrence was over. However, he saw part of that occurrence. Fourth, he saw the miscreants, later had meal at the house of Yudhishthir Singh, Ravindra Singh (both since deceased) and Rampal Singh. Fifth, he testified, Harnarayan Singh (P.W.-3), Ganga Singh, Phoolmati, Baby, Guddi and Sarbati were injured in the same occurrence. Last, he described the location where the dead bodies of the victims were found.

88. During his extensive cross-examination, no doubt arose regarding the presence of Layak Singh (P.W.-1), either while returning from his agricultural field or his hiding in the pit or inside the house of Dropa Devi. There is no dispute about the location of his agricultural field to the South-West of the village, or about his presence at the place from where he observed the unlawful assembly of 20-21 persons, including appellants Kaptan Singh and Ramsewak, enter his village, from the South-East direction. At that time, Jwala @ Jwaley was shot dead.

89. Further, his testimony is wholly truthful insofar as he did not attempt to prove any fact beyond what he witnessed, being slightly outside the village when the occurrence commenced. It is also undisputed, the dead body of Jwala @ Jwaley was found in his agricultural field, entirely outside the village 'abadi' where 23 other members of the 'Jatav' community were killed.

90. The account given by Layak Singh (P.W.-1) fully corroborates the prosecution case to the extent, it describes the assailants may have come together outside his village Dehuli. They first killed a member of the 'Jatav' family who came within the sight and range of their firearms. Since their object was to cause a massacre and terrorize the 'Jatav' community into submission, the miscreants entered the village 'abadi', to inflict maximum damage.

91. No reasonable doubt exists in that nature of the occurrence, there would have pre-existed mens rea to kill Layak Singh (P.W.-1), necessarily. He would have been killed, if he had fallen in their sight and within the rage of their firearms. Layak Singh (P.W.-1) remained unharmed, not because, the assailants did not intend to kill him, but because he may have remained out of their plain sight or range of their firearm.

92. In this context, Jwala @ Jwaley, who fell in the plain line of sight of the miscreants as they advanced towards the village, was shot dead. No doubt was raised during the cross-examination of Layak Singh (P.W.-1) that he was also within the plain line of sight of the miscreants (who in the normal course) would have been looking straight ahead towards the village as they moved. The fact that Layak Singh escaped the assault was a matter of mere chance. The assailants aimed to inflict maximum damage on the 'Jatav' community, generally. Thus, he remains a wholly reliable witness. His presence is wholly natural and his account of the occurrence, free from reasonable doubt. Though, all three surviving appellants were known to him from before, he clearly saw and identified two appellants only, namely, Ramsewak Singh and Kaptan Singh. He did not see Rampal Singh with them, at that time.

93. Further, Ved Ram (P.W.-2), also an agriculturist, was present on his agricultural field located about 40-50 paces from the village 'abadi'. He witnessed the unlawful assembly of 20-21 persons, including Santosh, Radhey, Kaptan Singh, Lakshmi, Kamarudeen, Ramsewak, Kunwar Pal and Shyamveer enter his village. He correctly identified Radhey, Santosh, Kamrudeen, Shyamveer and the present surviving appellants Kaptan Singh and Ramsewak. He made only one error in identifying Bhurey as Kunwar Pal. However, as that appeal filed on behalf of Bhurey has not survived, this mis-identification by Ved Ram is inconsequential to the merits of the appeal filed by the present appellants.

94. The present appellants, Kaptan Singh and Ramsewak, were identified by Ved Ram (P.W.-2), as well. Yet, like Layak Singh (P.W.-1), he too could not identify, who shot Jwala @ Jwaley. However, consistent to the narration of Layak Singh (P.W.-1), Ved Ram also stated, at the time, Jwala @ Jwaley was working in his agricultural field. This account, given by two eyewitnesses, is fully corroborated by the recovery of the dead body of the Jwala @ Jwaley from his own agricultural field.

95. Second, Ved Ram testified, the miscreants entered the 'abadi' area through various lanes and shot the deceased, at different locations. This narration aligns with testimony of Layak Singh-both as to the manner of the occurrence and the details of the deceased. Last, Ved Ram confirmed, after the massacre the miscreants went to the house of the appellant Rampal Singh and others.

96. During his cross-examination, no doubt arose regarding the presence of Ved Ram (P.W.-2) on his agricultural field when the miscreants entered the village 'abadi' area. Nor any reasonable doubt was raised to his account that some of the miscreants shot Jwala @ Jwaley before entering the village 'abadi' or that 24 members of the 'Jatav' community were killed and six injured by the unlawful assembly, included the present surviving appellants and 18-19 others. The narration, the occurrence lasted 2-2½ hour is wholly corroborated by the scale of the massacre. Thus, the said witness is also a wholly reliable witness both as to his presence and as to the occurrence, as narrated. Merely because he was described to be present-Layak Singh (P.W.-1) or Banwari Lal (P.W.-9), may remain irrelevant, in view of lack of effective cross examination of any prosecution witness, on that count.

97. Insofar as Harnarayan (P.W.-3) is concerned, he was about 13 years old at the time of the occurrence. He did not testify how the assailants entered the 'abadi' or from which direction. He was present inside the house of his uncle, Ved Ram (P.W.-2), accompanied by his aunt and her two sons namely, Bharat Singh and Data Ram. He testified-three assailants namely, Santosh, Radhey (both since deceased) and Lakshmi (currently absconding), forcibly entered that house and shot the victims. Bharat Singh and Data Ram died in the attack.

98. Harnarayan (P.W.-3) sustained firearm injuries, that were medically confirmed by Dr. Samya Vardhan (P.W.-8). The injuries included:

"i. A gunshot wound on his left thigh measuring 8 cm by 4 cm, located 12 cm below the hip, with clotted blood and abrasions around the injury. ii. A second firearm injury, 15 cm by 0.75 cm, skin-deep with abrasion marks, located in front of the first injury. iii. Multiple pellet injuries, 0.2 cm by 0.2 cm, with clotted blood on the penis and scrotum; the left testicle was swollen. iv. Another firearm injury, 1.5 cm by 0.5 cm, muscle-deep with abrasion and clotted blood inside. v. An injury on his right thigh, located 7 cm below the hip joint".

99. Thus, Harnarayan (P.W.-3) did suffer firearm injuries, in the occurrence. He is an injured witness. It is undeniable. The defence argument, that these injuries were not sufficient to render the witness unconscious, is irrelevant. The injured was a 13 year old boy who sustained four firearm injuries. He also testified, two of his cousins lost their lives in the same occurrence. It is not for the Court to speculate on whether such injuries caused by deadly weapon may or may not have rendered him unconscious. The fact remains, Harnarayan (P.W.-3) suffered firearm injuries during the occurrence and there is no reason to doubt, these injuries were caused at the time of the occurrence. The witness was examined by a medical professional on 19.11.1981, one day after the injuries were inflicted, on 18.11.1981. Neither the injuries nor their genuineness have been questioned. All injured were examined by the doctor under police custody. He is a wholly reliable eye witness to a vital part of the prosecution story. Yet, all assailants seen by him, have escaped justice. That remains a heavy cost that the Court may bear.

100. Similarly, the presence of Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4) cannot be doubted. It remained unchallenged during his cross-examination-that he ran a village grocery store from his residence. The occurrence happened around 4:00-5:00 p.m. in the month of November, 1981, in daylight. Therefore, his presence at his shop as also at his residence, where the shop was located, is entirely natural. Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4) suffered maximum loss. Eight members of his family were killed in the occurrence.

101. He did not testify about the direction or place from which the miscreants entered the 'abadi' area of the village. He described, he ran helter-skelter but eventually got trapped in his house, while attempting to flee. He narrated what he observed while moving through the village lanes. He stated-upon seeing the miscreants, he moved toward the house of Swarnpal but saw the miscreants Raju, Radhey and Inder coming from the direction of the house of Bhanwar Singh. Then, he ran towards the house of Suraj. Then, he saw the miscreants Raju, Bhurey and Shyamveer, all armed. He ran towards the house of Ram Swaroop, where he saw other miscreants, namely, Santosh, Kamrudeen and Kunwar Pal, all armed with firearms. He also saw Kaptan Singh there.

102. At that point, he ran inside his house and closed all doors. When he climbed to the terrace, he was spotted by the accused Inder, who fired at him, but missed. Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4) ran down and locked his sister-in-law Shanti, wife Sarbati, his sons Rajesh and Monu, Rekha, Neetu, Santosh and an infant (the child of his sister-in-law, whose name he could not recall), in a room. He locked himself in a different room and hid in a haystack. His mother Dulari was in another room. He further testified, from his hiding place he could see the other room.

103. In those facts, he proved, he saw Radhey, Santosh, Kamrudeen, Shyamveer, Yudhishthir (all deceased) and Kaptan Singh and Kunwar Pal (the present appellants). Two of the three present appellants killed his mother, dug out jewellery from the floor of that room and looted their fine clothes. Thereafter, the miscreants entered the room where he was hiding alongwith other family members. He witnessed their massacre, from his hiding place inside the haystack. Before being killed, his family members were asked to reveal the hiding place of the witness. They did not disclose that information, thereupon, they were all shot dead. In his narration, he stated, Santosh shot his wife Sarbati, killed his son Rajesh and his sister Rajendri. His brother Ram Prasad and his wife Singarwati were killed by Shyamveer, Kunwar Pal, Kamrudeen (all deceased). They also injured Guddi a young infant/child. The miscreants also dragged his brother-in-law Ram Swaroop from his house and killed him at the house of Lala Ram.

104. Although learned counsel for the appellants has urged the court to doubt the presence and testimony of the said witness Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4), we are unable to find any reasonable doubt in his initial presence-at his shop. There, he was naturally present in connection with his daily business. As noted above, Layak Singh (P.W.-1), Ved Ram (P.W.-2) and Harnarayan (P.W.-3) have consistently established, the miscreants numbering 20-21, entered the village from the South-West and reached the 'Jatav' locality of the village 'abadi', where they caused the massacre. That nature of the occurrence, consistently proven, is wholly corroborated by the recovery of dead bodies found in the streets; in different parts of the village 'abadi'; some inside houses, others in the lanes and one in an agricultural field.

105. Thus, the narration provided by Kumar Prasad is fully consistent to that offered by other witnesses. The only difference being, the first set of witnesses, namely Layak Singh (P.W.-1) and Ved Ram (P.W.-2), were outside the village when they saw the unlawful assembly enter, while Harnarayan (P.W.-3) was locked inside a room from which he witnessed some events and Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4) had a better view of the assailants as they spread out in the 'Jatav' locality of the 'abadi' and caused the massacre. Thus, all accounts corroborate and complement the other, to complete the gory picture of the massacre.

106. We also note, Harnarayan (P.W.-3) was a young boy, about 13-14 years of age, while Layak Singh (P.w.-1), Ved Ram (P.W.-2) and Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4) were adults. Therefore, they may have perceived and responded differently-to the massacre. Initially, Layak Singh and Kumar Prasad observed the assailants and their actions. Under threat from beginning and upon being spotted and fired at, they ran for cover and hid. During their cross-examination, no doubt was created that they could not have viewed the occurrence from their respective places of hiding. As noted earlier, it is a matter of common knowledge, apertures exist as may have also existed through doors and windows permitting visibility or ocular access, allowing one to observe or peep through to the other side.

107. In an occurrence of this nature, as narrated by Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4), his entire family was being massacred. It cannot be doubted, the witness was unable to help the members being outnumbered and over powered by the sheer magnitude of the occurrence. Though the witness may not have been chivalrous and may not have thought it proper to come out of his hiding to protect his family members who were being mercilessly killed, he may still have been compelled to witness that traumatic event from wherever he could, while trying to preserve his own life. Such behaviour is consistent to normal human instincts/nature. In absence of impossibility/established improbability of the witness viewing the occurrence as narrated, we are unable to accept any attempt to discredit or dismiss his testimony, as unreliable. In any case, we find it free from reasonable doubt.

108. Moreover, whatever be the reason, it is not unbelievable, the witness alone may have hidden in the haystack, while his others family members, especially the ladies and children, may have been hiding elsewhere inside rooms. Often, victims cling to a hope and belief that mercy may be shown to women and children, even in the most merciless killings. It is this hope, consistent to human nature that may prompt any human being to make such choices/arrangements, in extreme circumstances. Facts are what they are. Sometimes, circumstances dictate human conduct, leading to acts or omission, they might later regret for a lifetime. However, those may also not be cited to doubt the prosecution evidence, on the true test of such evidence being free from reasonable doubt.

109. For that reason, we are also not in a position to doubt the presence of Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4) inside the room from where he saw his close family members assaulted and massacred. In a moment of extreme terror, the instinct to fight to protect others may be numbed by the selfish but natural instincts of self-preservation. It is sufficient to explain why the witness may have conducted himself as he did, without exposing himself to the risk of being killed. Chivalry is not the test of reason. As with Harnarayan (P.W.-3), so with this witness he is wholly reliable. Yet, besides Kaptan Singh, who he did not see kill any but identified as an inseparable part of the unlawful assembly that caused the occurrence, the other accused who he saw cause the massacre, have escaped our clutches of the laws and being consumed by death.

110. Insofar as Banwari Lal (P.W.-9) is concerned, he did not add anything substantial beyond the depositions made by Layak Singh (P.W.-1), Ved Ram (P.W.-2), Harnarayan (P.W.-3) and Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4). Yet, it may be noted, neither in the FIR nor in the statement of Layak Singh (P.W.-1), his presence on his agricultural field with his father Jwala @ Jwaley, was not disclosed. No shot being fired at him and there being no description as to that, his presence on his agricultural field at that time, may not be free from doubt. Seen in that light his narration that the appellant Rampal Singh had actively participated in the occurrence, is not reliable.

111. In the totality of the facts of evidence led by the prosecution it is proven of the three surviving appellants, two, namely, Ramsewak and Kaptan Singh, entered the village 'abadi' of the 'Jatav' community at village Dehuli. They were armed with deadly weapons i.e. firearms and caused the massacre. This gruesome occurrence is fully corroborated by the recovery of the dead bodies found from different places in the village, all shot with firearms. Remarkably, none of the deceased suffered any other injuries. In view of the facts discussed above, promptly, the FIR was lodged; Inquest Reports were prepared and Post-Mortem/autopsy examinations were conducted. The injured were examined by doctors. Among them, Harnarayan Singh, a young boy, was examined as P.W.-3. No reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution story, to that extent.

112. As to the exact role played by the members of the unlawful assembly, none of the witnesses described either Kaptan Singh or Ramsewak killed any named deceased. However, it does not merit acceptance that in this case involving the massacre of 24 human beings, these appellants may not be guilty. The presence of both appellants, Kaptan Singh and Ramsewak, is fully established (beyond reasonable doubt) by Layak Singh (P.W.-1) and Ved Ram (P.W.-2). The presence of Kaptan Singh is also established by Kumar Prasad (P.W.-4). There is absolutely no doubt that they actively participated in the occurrence that resulted in 24 deaths and injuries suffered by six members of a single socially non-dominant community of 'Jatavs'. No exception can be made on the basis of the absence of any specific role assigned to these appellants to convict them under Section 302 read with Section 149 I.P.C.

113. Once the ingredients of the alleged Section 149 I.P.C. are fully established, any further inquiry becomes plainly academic. To draw an exception in such cases would be to attempt the absurd. Where caste violence has been established resulting in mass murders, the Court may exercise caution in engaging in needless inquiries that may ultimately obstruct or delay justice. Caste violence does not arise from the mere strength of arms but from the cumulative mindset of the individuals involved in committing that crime. It is this perversion that compels and individual mis-directed human mind to plan and commit such acts alongwith others. Once the ability of rational thinking is sacrificed by an individual before the occurrence, and he becomes part of an unlawful assembly that leads to a large-scale massacre, the individual role of the accused in the occurrence becomes irrelevant to the Courts.

114. Thus, insofar as appellants Ramsewak and Kaptan Singh are concerned, we find no reason to doubt their conviction for the offences under Section 148, 307 read with Section 149, 302 read with Section 149, 396, 449 read with Section 450 I.P.C.

115. Coming to the appellant Rampal Singh, he has been convicted for an offence under Section 302 read with Section 120-B I.P.C. He, besides Banwari Lal (P.W.-9), has not been named by any of the fact witnesses as one of the 20-21 miscreants who caused the occurrence. No evidence whatsoever was led by the prosecution to establish any element of criminal conspiracy involving the appellant. That testimony of Banwari Lal (P.W.-9) has not been believed by the learned trial court. That part of the statement by Banwari Lal (P.W.-9) may remain within the realm of reasonable doubt, especially since Layak Singh (P.W.-1) and Ved Ram (P.W.-2) wholly reliable witnesses, neither established the presence of Banwari Lal along with Jwala @ Jwaley when the latter was killed, nor they named Rampal as one of the persons present in that unlawful assembly. Layak Singh and Ved Ram knew Rampal Singh from before and accused him only of having fed the miscreants, the evening meal-after the occurrence. Therefore, we are unable to sustain the conviction of Rampal Singh under Section 302 read with Section 120B I.P.C.

116. Merely because Rampal Singh may have fed the miscreants after the occurrence did not amount to participation in the offence of conspiracy. Such act may be described as immoral or suspicious conduct but does not constitute direct involvement in criminal conspiracy. To the extent reasonable doubt persists with respect to the conviction of Rampal Singh, we are unable to sustain the order of conviction passed against him.

117. We are also not impressed with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants that a fair trial was not offered to them. In the first place, no person may be prejudiced by any act of the Court, nor does any benefit arise from such an act or omission. Largely, the trial Court proceedings remained pending for an unusually long duration-in the present case more than 40 years, as the case (originally of dacoity-affected area), was transferred to a non-dacoity affected area. Special notification was required to be issued by the competent authority to extend the jurisdiction of the specially constituted Court at Allahabad that was to conduct the trial proceedings. For want of due notifications (to extend its continuance), the trial remained suspended for a painfully long period. Only upon a subsequent transfer of the proceedings (by a judicial order) the trial commenced before the Court having proper jurisdiction. Although the appellants stated before the learned court below, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that they wished to lead defence evidence, no application was made either before the trial Court or before us-to lead any defence evidence. Therefore, the alleged lack of opportunity to lead defence evidence is merely a technical but not a substantive plea.

118. Consequently, the convictions of the appellants Ramsewak and Kaptan Singh are sustained, while that of Rampal Singh is set aside.

119. As to sentencing, though these are the most heinous offences, several factors weigh with us. First, the appellants Ramsewak and Kaptan Singh are not described as the lead perpetrators-who led the assault. The principal role appears to have been assigned to the accused Santosh and Radhey, against whom clear motive had been established and who bore the primary responsibility for leading the occurrence. Second, the convictions of Ramsewak and Kaptan Singh are sustained as members of unlawful assembly who participated in the occurrence, yet, no specific role has been established against them in the killing of any particular individual. Such specific roles exist against other accused who have died during the pendency of this appeal. In that, Lakshmi is still absconding. Third, the trial has taken over 40 years to conclude and the appellants are now of advanced age. Imposing death penalty now, under such circumstances, may not serve the ends of justice, 44 years after the occurrence. Accordingly, the sentence of death penalty imposed on the accused appellants Ramsewak and Kaptan Singh for offence under Section 302/149 I.P.C. is altered to life imprisonment. Remaining conviction and sentence are maintained.

120. Accordingly, the Capital Cases No.6 of 2025 is partly allowed. Consequently, the Reference No. 05 of 2025 is rejected. Also, the Capital Case No. 12 of 2025 is allowed. The Judgement and order of conviction so far as it relates to Rampal Singh is set aside.

121. The appellant-Rampal Singh is in Jail. He may be released forthwith in case he is not wanted in any other case. However, he is directed to furnish bail bonds in compliance of Section 437-A Cr.P.C. to the satisfaction of the Court concerned within three months from today.

122. The appellant Ramsewak Singh and Kaptan Singh are in jail. They shall serve life imprisonment. Fine awarded to them is also maintained.

123. A copy of this judgment be transmitted to the Court concerned for necessary compliance. Compliance report be submitted to this Court, at the earliest. Office is directed to keep the compliance report on record.

124. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

August 25, 2025 PS/Anurag/Prakhar/SA/Abhilash/Faraz

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court