Page 1

JUDGMENT

N0N-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.677 OF 2006

STATE OF U.P.

… APPELLANT

VERSUS

RAJESHWAR & ORS.

… RESPONDENTS

J U D GM E N T

Aftab Alam,J.

1.

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.

1

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2.

The case of the prosecution is based on the oral statement made by one

Brij Pal Singh (PW.1) 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

2

Page 3

JUDGMENT

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 (PW.3), Ashok son of the deceased Ram Chander (PW.2), 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

3

Page 4

JUDGMENT

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, Raj