JUDGMENT

Aftab Alam, J. — This appeal by special leave, at the instance of the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed against the judgment and order dated December 21, 2001 passed by the Allahabad High Court in a batch of criminal appeals. By the impugned judgment the High Court allowed all the appeals (that had come to it from a common judgment and order passed by the trial court) and acquitted all the 14 accused (respondents in the present appeal) all of whom were found guilty of rioting and arson and committing murder of three people by the trial court and 8 of whom were awarded the death penalty while the remaining 6 were given the punishment of life imprisonment.

2. The case of the prosecution is based on the oral statement made by one Brij Pal Singh (PW1) at Kayamganj police station before the Inspector-in-charge of that police station. Brij Pal Singh stated that he was a resident of Mauza Ballu Baheta, police station Kayamganj and there was old enmity and litigations between the Harijans and the Brahmins living in his village. On account of the enmity, the accused, namely, Rajeshwar (accused No.1), Ramveer (accused No.2), Rajveer (accused No.3), Patiram @ Patanga (accused No.4), Rajesh @ Tillu (accused No.5), Omveer (accused No.6), Ved Ram (accused No.7), Ram Sevak (accused No.8), Ram Sanehi (accused No.9), Ram Baran (accused No.10), Dayashankar (accused No.11), Radhey (accused No.12), Ram Prakash (accused No.13) and Ramua Jatav (accused No.14) along with four-five unknown accused (whom he could identify by face), armed with country made guns, rifles and kattas, came and surrounded their mohalla. The accused threatened that anybody trying to run away would not be spared. They then set fire to the informant’s Chhappar and Baithak and the houses of Rambir Garadia, Nek Ram, Awadhesh Nai and also the house of Gangadeen. When the informant and the other victims of the assault tried to run away to save their lives, the accused caught the informant’s son Manju @ Manoj and Ram Chandra Nai and assaulted them by lathis. They shot Manju near the house of Awadhesh Nai and threw him in the house that had been set ablaze by them. The informant’s brother Amar Singh ran towards Sadhu’s hut to save his life. But he was shot and killed there. The accused caught and took Ram Chander Nai towards south in the direction of the house of the sweeper and shot and killed him there. As a result of the indiscriminate firing made by the accused, one Bhura of the informant’s village got pellet injuries. The entire village was shocked. They beat up children and ladies. Huge loss was caused due to the burning of the houses. Besides the informant’s house, the accused also burnt the houses of their neighbours, the Nais, and the Telees because they used to sit with the informant and his people. The informant was somehow able to save his life and came to the police station to report the offences committed by the accused. He further said that the occurrence was seen by Jagbir son of Amar Singh (PW3), Ashok son of the deceased Ram Chander (PW2), Smt. Mahadevi wife of the deceased Ram Chander (not examined), and a number of others who, though named in the FIR, were not examined as prosecution witnesses. He concluded by saying that after committing the offences, the accused had fled away towards Ganga’s Katri.

3. The statement of Brij Pal Singh was reduced to writing and was incorporated in the formal FIR on the basis of which the police took up investigation. On completion of investigation, the police submitted charge-sheet against all the accused named in the FIR besides three other persons, namely, Kunwar Pal, Rajender and Ram Lal.

4. The respondents accused did not deny the occurrence but took the plea that they had no connection with it. According to the accused, it was a case of dacoity taking place in the dark hours of the night by unknown culprits and they were falsely implicated in the case on account of previous enmity.

5. All the accused named in the c